[mpls] PW config checking in draft-reduction and draft-jc

Lizhong Jin<lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn> Sat, 05 January 2013 07:29 UTC

Return-Path: <lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3267E21F86CC; Fri, 4 Jan 2013 23:29:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.298
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.298 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EV0ByQQsoWuK; Fri, 4 Jan 2013 23:29:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zte.com.cn (mx6.zte.com.cn [95.130.199.165]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A4FF21F869A; Fri, 4 Jan 2013 23:29:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zte.com.cn (unknown [192.168.168.119]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTP id CFC3F8A1FC; Sat, 5 Jan 2013 15:28:56 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mse01.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.3.20]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id 84D017194BE; Sat, 5 Jan 2013 15:18:39 +0800 (CST)
Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse01.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id r057SonE069134; Sat, 5 Jan 2013 15:28:50 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn)
To: pwe3@ietf.org, lmartini@cisco.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.4 March 27, 2005
Message-ID: <OF5214EBCC.C120CCEC-ON48257AEA.00267A01-48257AEA.00291A99@zte.com.cn>
From: Lizhong Jin <lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn>
Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2013 15:27:51 +0800
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.3FP1 HF212|May 23, 2012) at 2013-01-05 15:28:29, Serialize complete at 2013-01-05 15:28:29
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 00291A9648257AEA_="
X-MAIL: mse01.zte.com.cn r057SonE069134
Cc: mpls@ietf.org, andrew.g.malis@verizon.com, chen.ran@zte.com.cn, Sami Boutros <sboutros@cisco.com>, lizho.jin@gmail.com, kingston.selvaraj@ipinfusion.com, elisa.bellagamba@ericsson.com
Subject: [mpls] PW config checking in draft-reduction and draft-jc
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2013 07:29:12 -0000

Hi Luca,
Thanks for the comment during IETF85 for 
draft-jc-pwe3-static-config-check-01:
"Luca: In the refresh reduction draft, it does configuration checking and 
it is expandable.  We need to reconcile what is in the refresh reduction 
and see if we can reuse it."
I review draft-ietf-pwe3-status-reduction-00, and yes, this draft contains 
the configuration checking, and the main difference between 
draft-reduction and draft-jc would be:
1. draft-redunction defines a new protocol (status redunction protocol) to 
do the configuration checking, and draft-jc reuse GAP[ietf-mpls-gach-adv] 
to do the checking.
2. the text in draft-redunction describes the checking whether the PW is 
configured or not, while draft-jc describes the checking whether the PW 
parameters of both ends matches.
The second point is easy to reconcile by extending the PW status reduction 
protocol. Then the key point is which protocol is more suitable for 
configuration checking, redunction protocol or GAP? Note that there is 
another MPLS draft to do LSP configuration check using GAP, 
draft-smiler-mpls-tp-static-lsp-config-check. So the mail is cc to MPLS WG 
too.
I tend to prefer the GAP to do the PW configuration checking, since 
redunction protocol is a specially designed protocol to reduce PW status 
message. Hope to see more comments from the WG.

Thanks
Lizhong