Re: [mpls] progressing draft-mtaillon-mpls-summary-frr-rsvpte

["Tarek Saad (tsaad)" <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Lou for your review and comments. Inline for responses.

On 2015-09-17, 11:21 AM, "mpls on behalf of Lou Berger"
<[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:

>
>I have some comments on the proposed mechanism (I have no opinion on
>utility or likely implementation):
>
>1. WRT SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ACTIVE object
>
>RSVP object space is a pretty scarce resource and it seems we have a
>number of existing objects that could be reused to support transport of
>the required information.  Some candidates include: the Association
>object with a new association type; or perhaps the PRIMARY_PATH_ROUTE
>Object with a new C-type.
[TS]: seems reasonable, we will discuss this among the authors for a
suitable extension.

>
>2. SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobjects
>
>While RFC4090 makes use of RRO carried information, it does so without
>changing the RRO format.  (At the time, I recall some used this as
>justification for RRO usage vs introducing new formats.)  The new SOs
>introduce new information and don't seem to be particularly linked to
>normal RRO operation -- and more significantly really defining new
>transit-node to transit-node signaling semantics:
[TS]: the new SO, is recording local information that if intercepted by
another LSR (PLR or MP that understands it) can use it for further summary
FRR processing. This resembles to an extent what other RRO SOs do today
(e.g. node-id and label Sos) for regular FRR.

>
>   The PLR notifies the MP of the bypass tunnel assignment via adding a
>   SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject to the RSVP Path message
>   RECORD_ROUTE object ...
>
>   The MP acknowledges the PLR's assignment by signalling a
>   SUMMARY_FRR_BYPASS_ASSIGNMENT subobject within the RSVP Resv messsage
>   RECORD_ROUTE object.
>
>IMO this usage of RRO is really wrong (and is easily broken by
>application of RRO policies).  I think extending an existing object
[TS]: yes, the comment (about RRO policies) is rightfully correct. .. but
also applicable to existing RRO/SO(s) (e.g. node-id and/or label SO)
needed for proper FRR too. That said, will discuss extension of an
existing (FRR) object amongst the authors for (dis)advantages.

Regards,
Tarek


>class is a better approach. Extending one of the existing FRR objects
>would probably be cleanest, but think the authors should consider and
>propose their preference.
>
>Lou
>
>On 9/17/2015 6:44 AM, Loa Andersson wrote:
>> Working Groups,
>>
>> The mpls and teas working group chairs discussed the home working
>> group for draft-mtaillon-mpls-summary-frr-rsvpte. Since the is entirely
>> the choice fell on the mpls working group. We also decided to keep
>> the teas wg in the loop.
>>
>> We have just initiated the mpls review team (MPLS-RT) review if this
>> draft. This review is focused on if we want to accept the document as
>> a working group draft, and if it is in shape for us to do so.
>>
>> The MPLS-RT reviewers are picked by the mpls chair that will shepherd
>> the document.
>>
>> This also mean that this is a good time for anyone, from both working
>> groups, to review the document. Please send your reviews to the mpls
>> working group mailing list ([e-mail]).
>>
>> /Loa
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>mpls mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls