Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-mpls-number-0-bw-te-lsps (A Link-Type sub-TLV to convey the number of Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths signalled with zero reserved bandwidth across a link) to Proposed Standard
Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi> Fri, 18 April 2008 10:58 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B6E828C12E; Fri, 18 Apr 2008 03:58:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF75A3A68DF; Fri, 18 Apr 2008 03:58:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s51GF5I6R9kS; Fri, 18 Apr 2008 03:58:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from netcore.fi (eunet-gw.ipv6.netcore.fi [IPv6:2001:670:86:3001::1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A49E28C1ED; Fri, 18 Apr 2008 03:58:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from netcore.fi (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by netcore.fi (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m3IAwVIa014131; Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:58:31 +0300
Received: from localhost (pekkas@localhost) by netcore.fi (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) with ESMTP id m3IAwVhL014128; Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:58:31 +0300
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:58:30 +0300
From: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-mpls-number-0-bw-te-lsps (A Link-Type sub-TLV to convey the number of Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths signalled with zero reserved bandwidth across a link) to Proposed Standard
In-Reply-To: <20080411190202.23A7E3A6E3A@core3.amsl.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.1.10.0804181333150.13010@netcore.fi>
References: <20080411190202.23A7E3A6E3A@core3.amsl.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (LRH 962 2008-03-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.93, clamav-milter version 0.93 on otso.netcore.fi
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Cc: mpls@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008, The IESG wrote: > The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG > (mpls) to consider the following document: > > - 'A Link-Type sub-TLV to convey the number of Traffic Engineering Label > Switched Paths signalled with zero reserved bandwidth across a link ' > <draft-ietf-mpls-number-0-bw-te-lsps-09.txt> as a Proposed Standard > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the > ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2008-04-25. Exceptionally, > comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please > retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. I've reviewed this document for OPS-DIR. My general observation is that trying TE bandwidth signalling to IGP advertisements seems somewhat dubious. For example, when a TE signalling protocol adjusts reservations on a link, IGP information gets outdated and needs to be refreshed, causing churn in the local routing system. But this concept is not introduced by this document and as a result I do not see significant operational issues with this document. With regards to the management aspects, the document says: "Unconstrained TE LSPs that are configured and provisioned through a management system MAY be omitted from the count that is reported." Which is interesting because document doesn't specify what would set this information in the first place. My assumption during the reading was that the TE signalling protocol would notify the IGP of changes using implementation's internal API. But aren't TE signalling protocols usually just applying policies configured at a management system, so the message above might also also apply? How does the IGP know how TE LSP was provisioned and if it should be included in the calculation or not? FWIW, I'd expect that the value need not be configured manually or adjusted using network management such NETCONF or SNMP write. The value should be readable using SNMP but I don't know if TE signalling protocol MIB modules provide this information to network managers. procedural and editorial issues ------------------------------- I'll note that the normative reference (and I believe it needs to stay normative) I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-traffic is marked "Dead" in the I-D tracker, having been expired some time ago. This document is going to wait for the publication of I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-traffic and I'd hope the latter would get done soon. This document makes a normative reference to IS-IS TE RFC 3784 which is currently informational. This causes a procedural down-ref problem. RFC 3784 is being revised on standards track and I guess the reference could be updated to point to draft-ietf-isis-te-bis which is currently in Publication Requested - External review. Reference to RFC2470 (IPv6 over token ring!) should be to RFC2740 :-) (or upcoming draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-update) -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
- Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-mpls-number-0-bw-te-lsp… Pekka Savola