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

John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net> Fri, 28 February 2014 12:03 UTC

Return-Path: <jdrake@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55C081A0733 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 04:03:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8Fm9MAvs8_LL for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 04:03:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from va3outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (va3ehsobe004.messaging.microsoft.com [216.32.180.14]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E92B1A070E for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 04:03:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail94-va3-R.bigfish.com (10.7.14.238) by VA3EHSOBE012.bigfish.com (10.7.40.62) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.22; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 12:03:07 +0000
Received: from mail94-va3 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail94-va3-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 151EC2C0096; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 12:03:06 +0000 (UTC)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.56.240.101; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:BL2PRD0510HT003.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI
X-SpamScore: -19
X-BigFish: VPS-19(zz9371Ic85fhzz1f42h2148h208ch1ee6h1de0h1fdah2073h2146h1202h1e76h2189h1d1ah1d2ah21bch1fc6hzz1d7338h1de098h1033IL17326ah8275bh8275dh18c673h1de097h186068hz2fh109h2a8h839hd24hf0ah1288h12a5h12bdh137ah1441h1504h1537h153bh162dh1631h1758h18e1h1946h19b5h19ceh1ad9h1b0ah1bceh224fh1d07h1d0ch1d2eh1d3fh1de9h1dfeh1dffh1fe8h1ff5h20f0h2216h22d0h2336h2461h2487h24d7h2516h2545h255eh25cch9a9j1155h)
Received-SPF: pass (mail94-va3: domain of juniper.net designates 157.56.240.101 as permitted sender) client-ip=157.56.240.101; envelope-from=jdrake@juniper.net; helo=BL2PRD0510HT003.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ; .outlook.com ;
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report-Untrusted: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009001)(979002)(428001)(377454003)(189002)(199002)(16236675002)(49866001)(2656002)(74316001)(74706001)(74662001)(47446002)(31966008)(81686001)(79102001)(85306002)(56816005)(74876001)(15202345003)(74502001)(81816001)(15975445006)(59766001)(77982001)(50986001)(69226001)(4396001)(47976001)(19609705001)(80022001)(95416001)(19300405004)(76482001)(66066001)(65816001)(19580395003)(54356001)(93516002)(83322001)(94946001)(83072002)(54316002)(51856001)(46102001)(56776001)(86362001)(19580405001)(94316002)(87936001)(33646001)(74366001)(76576001)(81342001)(92566001)(80976001)(87266001)(90146001)(81542001)(93136001)(63696002)(95666003)(47736001)(85852003)(76786001)(53806001)(76796001)(24736002)(969003)(989001)(999001)(1009001)(1019001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BLUPR05MB772; H:BLUPR05MB562.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; CLIP:66.129.241.10; FPR:BCF7F09D.AF00D3D1.31EB75F8.48E5F03F.20354; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
Received: from mail94-va3 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail94-va3 (MessageSwitch) id 1393588984304533_22670; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 12:03:04 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from VA3EHSMHS021.bigfish.com (unknown [10.7.14.246]) by mail94-va3.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A3D580047; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 12:03:04 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from BL2PRD0510HT003.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (157.56.240.101) by VA3EHSMHS021.bigfish.com (10.7.99.31) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.227.3; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 12:03:04 +0000
Received: from BLUPR05MB772.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.209.27) by BL2PRD0510HT003.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.255.100.38) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.423.0; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 12:03:03 +0000
Received: from BLUPR05MB562.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.202.141) by BLUPR05MB772.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.209.27) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.883.10; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 12:03:02 +0000
Received: from BLUPR05MB562.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.202.141]) by BLUPR05MB562.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.202.141]) with mapi id 15.00.0888.003; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 12:03:02 +0000
From: John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>
To: "Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com>, Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vishnupavan@gmail.com>, "Zhangxian (Xian)" <zhang.xian@huawei.com>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] Network Assigned Upstream Label - Draft Update
Thread-Index: AQHPMdsYvssPwUy7tE25OQyH3lHq5prFzY2AgAAgTQCABC0SgIAAediA
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 12:03:01 +0000
Message-ID: <83e55b10e7b740efb9593b7261095aaa@BLUPR05MB562.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CA+YzgTuUQzfjnjTWdya7xgpytB+nBvY_d-Sx4faqUJY3Md9h5Q@mail.gmail.com> <CF323F23.9C8CD%zali@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CF323F23.9C8CD%zali@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.10]
x-forefront-prvs: 0136C1DDA4
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_83e55b10e7b740efb9593b7261095aaaBLUPR05MB562namprd05pro_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn%
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/zrZrvn5bPp5mAi7uQHHhNf9etzI
Cc: "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Network Assigned Upstream Label - Draft Update
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 12:03:12 -0000

Zafar,

The use of acceptable label set is *not* acceptable because it doubles the signaling overhead and opens up the window for contention.  We've discussed this before.

Yours Irrespectively,

John

From: CCAMP [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Zafar Ali (zali)
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 8:41 PM
To: Vishnu Pavan Beeram; Zhangxian (Xian)
Cc: ccamp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Network Assigned Upstream Label - Draft Update



From: Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vishnupavan@gmail.com<mailto:vishnupavan@gmail.com>>
Date: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 7:54 AM
To: "Zhangxian (Xian)" <zhang.xian@huawei.com<mailto:zhang.xian@huawei.com>>
Cc: "ccamp@ietf.org<mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>" <ccamp@ietf.org<mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Network Assigned Upstream Label - Draft Update


 2)      In this draft, it is assumed that the label assigned will always be symmetric (i.e., upstream and downstream label is equal). Thus, IMHO, using the mechanism specified by RFC3473 for unidirectional LSP setup (i.e., downstream label assigned by the destination node will also enable upstream label selected) can solve the problem. It does not require protocol extensions, although probably some operational policy should be in force to ask the nodes in the data plane to configure the resource in both directions. How do you see your solution better/different than this one?
[VPB] If I understood what you are saying - your suggestion is to signal the Lambda LSP as a uni-directional LSP (no UPSTREAM-LABEL) and have some policy at each hop requesting the implementation to ignore the signaled "uni-directionality" and assign the labels in both directions for the LSP. (Did I understand that right?)
Yes, you could do that. And you could also use this policy based approach (overriding signaled objects) for a number of other signaled attributes of an LSP. The obvious advantage of having a signaling based solution is that you wouldn't need explicit policy to be configured/implemented at each hop along the path of the LSP.

Pavan:

When (alien) wavelength is same in forward and reverse direction, we can use label set along with acceptable label set - as defined in RFC3473.

Thanks

Regards ... Zafar