Re: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-lsp-inquiry-00

Khuzema Pithewan <> Tue, 30 July 2013 17:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 269D311E821D for <>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 10:40:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fsxpo7YkbMI8 for <>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 10:40:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFD7F11E81F7 for <>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 10:40:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([fe80::dc68:4e20:6002:a8f9]) by ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 10:40:47 -0700
From: Khuzema Pithewan <>
To: Khuzema Pithewan <>, "CCAMP (" <>
Thread-Topic: draft-ali-ccamp-lsp-inquiry-00
Thread-Index: Ac6NL9ROMXULLvcwR2aMbEKex7ZPbAAG5uQw
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 17:40:47 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D8D01B39D6B38C45AA37C06ECC1D65D53FDD183BSVEXDBPROD1infi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-lsp-inquiry-00
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 17:40:55 -0000

Another point I spoke about in the meeting ..

Why can't we extend Admin Status object to signal resource locking, checking for re-optimization. Since this operation is typically done in maintenance window by Admin, it may make sense to use Admin Status Object. Moreover, we have lots of bits available/undefined in Admin Status object.

This will save network element to manage life of additional LSP and control plane failure related issues attached to the additional LSP.


From: [] On Behalf Of Khuzema Pithewan
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 4:25 PM
Subject: [CCAMP] draft-ali-ccamp-lsp-inquiry-00


The draft relies on ability to setup GMPLS lsp without committing resources in dataplane.

Only reference I found to setup pre-planned GMPLS is in RFC 6001.

The green highlighted part says it is not possible to support 0 bandwidth lsp for TDM/LSC network. While red part alludes that it can be done.

Also I couldn' locate the text in any RFC that describes the NULL label behavior in GMPLS context.

RFC6001 5.2.2 says


However, mechanisms for provisioning (pre-planned or not) a TDM or
   LSC LSP with 0 bandwidth is currently not possible because the
   exchanged label value is tightly coupled with resource allocation
   during LSP signaling (e.g., see [RFC4606] for a SONET/SDH LSP).  For
   TDM and LSC LSP, a NULL Label value is used to prevent resource
   allocation at the data plane level.  In these cases, upon LSP
   resource commitment, actual label value exchange is performed to
   commit allocation of timeslots/ wavelengths.