[mpls] Next MPLS-TE P2MP Requirements Issue
Seisho Yasukawa <yasukawa.seisho@lab.ntt.co.jp> Tue, 18 January 2005 10:16 UTC
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA08397; Tue, 18 Jan 2005 05:16:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CqqeW-0003hV-Uw; Tue, 18 Jan 2005 05:32:01 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CqqJH-00012q-MS; Tue, 18 Jan 2005 05:10:03 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CqqIs-0000nq-CW for mpls@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Jan 2005 05:09:38 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA07957 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Jan 2005 05:09:35 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tama5.ecl.ntt.co.jp ([129.60.39.102]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CqqY5-0003XE-BZ for mpls@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Jan 2005 05:25:22 -0500
Received: from vcs3.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp (vcs3.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp [129.60.39.110]) by tama5.ecl.ntt.co.jp (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j0IA9Qqf001851 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Jan 2005 19:09:31 +0900 (JST)
Received: from vcs3.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by vcs3.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j0IA9Pxw024984 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Jan 2005 19:09:26 +0900 (JST)
Received: from mfs3.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp (mfs3.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp [129.60.39.112]) by vcs3.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j0IA9P0F024969 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Jan 2005 19:09:25 +0900 (JST)
Received: from mfs3.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mfs3.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j0IA9Orl000637 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Jan 2005 19:09:24 +0900 (JST)
Received: from nttmail3.ecl.ntt.co.jp ([129.60.39.100]) by mfs3.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j0IA9M25000612 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Jan 2005 19:09:22 +0900 (JST)
Received: from eclscan3.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp (eclscan3.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp [129.60.5.69]) by nttmail3.ecl.ntt.co.jp (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j0IA9LBH022436 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Jan 2005 19:09:21 +0900 (JST)
Received: from eclscan3.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eclscan3.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j0IA9Lur028271 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Jan 2005 19:09:21 +0900 (JST)
Received: from imc.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp (imc0.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp [129.60.5.141]) by eclscan3.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j0IA9KaD028266; Tue, 18 Jan 2005 19:09:20 +0900 (JST)
Received: from win-yasukawa.lab.ntt.co.jp by imc.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp (8.9.3p2/3.7W) with ESMTP id TAA02550; Tue, 18 Jan 2005 19:09:19 +0900 (JST)
Message-Id: <5.0.2.5.2.20050118182723.0659d4d0@imc.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp>
X-Sender: sy003@imc.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2-J
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 19:23:33 +0900
To: mpls@ietf.org
From: Seisho Yasukawa <yasukawa.seisho@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 73734d43604d52d23b3eba644a169745
Subject: [mpls] Next MPLS-TE P2MP Requirements Issue
X-BeenThere: mpls@lists.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.lists.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/mpls>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@lists.ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: mpls-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: mpls-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 386e0819b1192672467565a524848168
Hi, Thank you for your support in the discussion of the first MPLS-TE P2MP signaling requirements issue and I am sorry for breaking up the discussion for a while. I would like to move on to the next open issue which is in section 4.10 of the draft (draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-sig-requirement-00.txt) This section discusses re-optimization of P2MP LSP trees. The main intention is that the ingress LSR is able to perform any form of re-optimization of all or part of the tree and that such an operation should be available in a way that has minimal impact on the service (i.e. negligible traffic hit). The section concludes with the paragraph... The solution SHOULD also provide the ability for the ingress LSR to have a strict control on the re-optimization process. Such re-optimization MAY be initiated by the sub-tree root branch node (that is, the branch node MAY setup a new sub-tree, then splice traffic on the new subtree and delete the former sub-tree). This paragraph is open to some debate. [Debate 1] Should a non-ingress LSR (branch & transit) be allowed to notice that re-optimizataion is possible ? Our opinion is yes. [Debate 2] What should it do when it does notice ? a. Act autonomously ? b. Act autonomously, but only if granted permission by the ingress on LSP setup ? c. Notify the ingress of potential re-optimization and allow the ingress to act ? Previous discussion said that it was dangerous to allow re-optimization out of the control of the ingress LSR. At the least, the ingress should have the ability to grant or deny permission for autonomous re-optimization. This can be compared to draft-vasseur-ccamp-loose-path-reopt-02.txt for P2P TE LSPs, but there may be additional mechanisms available to facilitate splicing new sub-trees in P2MP MPLS-TE. There are some immediate concerns about the possibility of re-convergence (merging) of the data tree as a result of partial re-optimization outside the control of the ingress LSR. However, no re-optimization is ever allowed to avoid the explicit path of the LSP, so the problem is no different from that which exists with loose hops in the first place. [A separate discussion on how tree remerge is handled comes later in this thread.] [Debate 3] Can re-optimization be carried out by any downstream LSR ? We think the answer is yes. That is, each downstream LSR may consider itself to be the root of a sub-tree and may perform whatever re-optimization is required. This reasoning led us to the original paragraph which we would like to refine as follows: The solution SHOULD also provide the ability for the ingress LSR to have a strict control on the re-optimization process. The ingress LSR SHOULD be able to limit all re-optimization to be source- initiated. Where sub-tree re-optimization is allowed by the ingress LSR, such re-optimization MAY be initiated by a downstream LSR that is the root of the sub-tree that is to be re-optimized. Sub-tree re-optimization initiated by a downstream LSR MUST be carried out with the same regard to minimizing the hit on active traffic as was described above for other re-optimization. Please contribute your opinions. Thanks, Seisho. _______________________________________________ mpls mailing list mpls@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
- [mpls] Next MPLS-TE P2MP Requirements Issue Seisho Yasukawa