Re: [CCAMP] Network Assigned Upstream Label - Draft Update

["Zafar Ali (zali)" <[e-mail]>]

Igor-

And we also had this discussion but you did not find a use case for asymmetrical label.

----------- begin forwarded message -----

-----Original Message-----
From: Fatai Zhang <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Tuesday, November 5, 2013 3:20 PM
To: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>"
<[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Vishnu Pavan Beeram <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: [CCAMP] 答复:  答复: Comments about
draft-beeram-ccamp-network-assigned-upstream-label-00

For the transport/GMPLS networks, I would repeat the bidirectional LSPs
are always symmetric in practice, so there are no cases for some nodes to
assign asymmetric labels.


I agree. Just want to add as CCAMP should NOT be assuming some research work.

Thanks

Regards...Zafar

----------- end of forwarded message -----

Thanks

Regards … Zafar

From: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Friday, February 28, 2014 10:04 AM
To: zali <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Vishnu Pavan Beeram <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: RE: [CCAMP] Network Assigned Upstream Label - Draft Update

Zafar,
As of today the label set object cannot govern label selection for the upstream label. You need either:

a)      Notion of label-symmetrical bidirectional LSPs or

b)      Notion of upstream label set
None of this defined in the documents you refer to.

Igor

From: CCAMP [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Zafar Ali (zali)
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 10:00 AM
To: Vishnu Pavan Beeram; Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti)
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Network Assigned Upstream Label - Draft Update

Hi Pavan:

The acceptable label set is picked from the label set (e.g., one of the labels from the label set). So it's not a compromised solution. It works and is deployed.

Thanks

Regards … Zafar

From: Vishnu Pavan Beeram <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Friday, February 28, 2014 9:16 AM
To: "Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: zali <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Network Assigned Upstream Label - Draft Update

Giovanni, Hi!

Can you please elaborate on why you think the LABEL_SET having good labels help in this context/argument? If the upstream-node doesn't guess right (when picking the upstream-label), you'll get a PATH-ERR back with the ACCEPTABLE_LABEL_SET. And this would happen for every setup request. Wouldn't you call this a compromised solution?

Regards,
-Pavan

On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 7:54 AM, Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi Vishnu,

On 28 Feb 2014, at 13:26, Vishnu Pavan Beeram <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:


(2) The use of Label-Set/Acceptable Label-Set was meant to be used for exceptions. Using it always for every setup request is a compromised solution.


At the time we discussed the wson signaling (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling-06), the acceptable label set was considered good enough. Not sure it comes into play at every request since your label_set should have reasonably good labels.

Cheers
G