[mpls] draft-deshmukh-rsvp-rmr-extension
Abhishek Deshmukh <adeshmukh@juniper.net> Mon, 06 March 2017 22:52 UTC
Return-Path: <adeshmukh@juniper.net>
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 42ECB129547 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Mar 2017 14:52:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=junipernetworks.onmicrosoft.com
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 UeWlH-c6MNOF for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Mar 2017 14:52:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from NAM01-BN3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn3nam01on0099.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.33.99]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B446129493 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Mar 2017 14:52:35 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=junipernetworks.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-juniper-net; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=wjW14VImHf9AAlEVKTOVCi69oQo4OTvTK3B3XFkq7N4=; b=AbYAw9rXXsNLvmKswzo8yMzaz2M26x3pF+XJFb0U62wQj6kKbwcr+ehqjnev/jyueCuKW8bZKKV9kwze+TAjHn4qjCRH1UZTENJsi/FjxNi9j/xB7s3u8xM09mR2JuO67n3p7dCQ+ryWpEpEy0yZ8ZMdtFkxl+rJgVVefQnjNao=
Received: from CO2PR0501MB1077.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.160.7.22) by CO2PR0501MB1077.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.160.7.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.947.2; Mon, 6 Mar 2017 22:52:33 +0000
Received: from CO2PR0501MB1077.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.160.7.22]) by CO2PR0501MB1077.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.160.7.22]) with mapi id 15.01.0947.011; Mon, 6 Mar 2017 22:52:33 +0000
From: Abhishek Deshmukh <adeshmukh@juniper.net>
To: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: draft-deshmukh-rsvp-rmr-extension
Thread-Index: AQHSlsxXonFNfvGtMUu0sddk2NrX2Q==
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2017 22:52:33 +0000
Message-ID: <92C1A19A-0756-4AAD-A2B8-83F2739B6807@juniper.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.1f.0.170216
authentication-results: ietf.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;ietf.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=juniper.net;
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.11]
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: e341fdfb-ffe1-4650-1d26-08d464e37a57
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(22001)(48565401081); SRVR:CO2PR0501MB1077;
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; CO2PR0501MB1077; 7:AXTe1gCFZfZH8uEGyAQgs6xcSlvnn+qXXSkhPddKDQLjOM+4JP3pvWXcjLJcvLNmzLBC4x6IApdAaN9EHa8e4rfGv0kZOy2gEtqi1SmXScOJ4LHppmSco+DtErbv9UOPReOF9DtIlM2wczZ/dJ9+eWX9c5R1JZbAgwZxf2LU/w0AYTgwaPzyY5njANxqcPUXJKUeNJRLklmCq1Jzb1vOwA10Wo8WTvULu73hyFZUlgckjd0R6iP+eOoHTpdp3DNS/7pqkvyHpTOKnldWJmFIqF+4MIloBjbPQRDk7IB79nJ4bndsBQ1cGshFxWJF0+9Z1gWL9Km2uxhwTZcUHQ35GA==
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <CO2PR0501MB1077C15D42E2C926F2F77A74B42C0@CO2PR0501MB1077.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(21748063052155);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040375)(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(10201501046)(3002001)(6055026)(6041248)(20161123555025)(20161123564025)(20161123560025)(20161123562025)(20161123558025)(6072148); SRVR:CO2PR0501MB1077; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:CO2PR0501MB1077;
x-forefront-prvs: 0238AEEDB0
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(7916002)(39450400003)(39410400002)(39840400002)(39860400002)(39850400002)(53754006)(50986999)(86362001)(3846002)(81166006)(33656002)(7736002)(2900100001)(102836003)(4326008)(7906003)(2501003)(236005)(66066001)(230783001)(36756003)(8676002)(6506006)(92566002)(77096006)(122556002)(189998001)(6116002)(606005)(6486002)(3660700001)(6436002)(9326002)(53936002)(6306002)(99286003)(106116001)(54356999)(54896002)(38730400002)(25786008)(5660300001)(3280700002)(2906002)(6512007)(104396002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:CO2PR0501MB1077; H:CO2PR0501MB1077.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en;
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_92C1A19A07564AADA2B883F2739B6807junipernet_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 06 Mar 2017 22:52:33.8184 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CO2PR0501MB1077
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/HAwkqVHFaqgDZRV-uD9D65OUJcs>
Cc: "draft-deshmukh-rsvp-rmr-extension@tools.ietf.org" <draft-deshmukh-rsvp-rmr-extension@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: [mpls] draft-deshmukh-rsvp-rmr-extension
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Mon, 06 Mar 2017 22:52:37 -0000
Hi All, During IETF96 & IETF97, we received some feedback on the following draft: https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-deshmukh-rsvp-rmr-extension-01.txt The purpose of this email just to clarify on the PATH sender-template merging process as described in the draft. Every ring lsp originates & terminated at the same node i.e. the ingress & egress for the ring LSP is same. Also, ring LSPs are MP2P in nature. It means every non-egress node is also an ingress and a merge-point for the LSP. R0---->R1---->R2---->R3---->R4---->R0 To establish an MP2P LSP, when node R2 receives a PATH message from R0, R2 adds it’s own SENDER_TEMPLATE in the outgoing PATH message. The outgoing PATH message at R0 will have the following SENDER_TEMPLATES: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |SENDER_TEMPLATE_0 : SENDER_ADDRESS = R0, LSP_ID = 1 | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |SENDER_TEMPLATE_1 : SENDER_ADDRESS = R1, LSP_ID = 1 | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |SENDER_TEMPLATE_2 : SENDER_ADDRESS = R2, LSP_ID = 1 | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Similarly, each node in the ring will insert it’s own SENDER_TEMPLATE. The RESV message will have multiple FILTER_SPEC objects corresponding to the SENDER_TEMPLATES. Further, this process of SENDER_TEMPLATE merging can also be used for bandwidth management as described in section 4.5 of the draft. I will be presenting this draft at the upcoming IETF 98. Please let us know, if there are any additional questions/feedback on this. Thanks, Abhishek and co-author(s)
- [mpls] draft-deshmukh-rsvp-rmr-extension Abhishek Deshmukh