IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mpls] draft-esale-mpls-ldp-node-frr-00

Shahram Davari <davari@broadcom.com> Wed, 04 November 2015 01:38 UTC

Return-Path: <davari@broadcom.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF1321A88E3 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 17:38:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.209
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.209 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 EoEiy8dAXOUw for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 17:38:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-gw1-out.broadcom.com (mail-gw1-out.broadcom.com [216.31.210.62]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4742E1A8904 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 17:38:39 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.20,240,1444719600"; d="scan'208,217"; a="79682768"
Received: from irvexchcas06.broadcom.com (HELO IRVEXCHCAS06.corp.ad.broadcom.com) ([10.9.208.53]) by mail-gw1-out.broadcom.com with ESMTP; 03 Nov 2015 19:41:54 -0800
Received: from SJEXCHCAS07.corp.ad.broadcom.com (10.16.203.16) by IRVEXCHCAS06.corp.ad.broadcom.com (10.9.208.53) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 17:38:38 -0800
Received: from SJEXCHMB12.corp.ad.broadcom.com ([fe80::bc15:c1e1:c29a:36f7]) by SJEXCHCAS07.corp.ad.broadcom.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 17:38:38 -0800
From: Shahram Davari <davari@broadcom.com>
To: "Shah, Himanshu" <hshah@ciena.com>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: draft-esale-mpls-ldp-node-frr-00
Thread-Index: AdEWntxZCDi6JDKdQ06V/allOy8YMgAAbqnAAAA4amA=
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2015 01:38:37 +0000
Message-ID: <4A6CE49E6084B141B15C0713B8993F283204F87B@SJEXCHMB12.corp.ad.broadcom.com>
References: <4A6CE49E6084B141B15C0713B8993F283204F7B6@SJEXCHMB12.corp.ad.broadcom.com> <40746B2300A8FC4AB04EE722A593182B9C821A7F@ONWVEXCHMB04.ciena.com>
In-Reply-To: <40746B2300A8FC4AB04EE722A593182B9C821A7F@ONWVEXCHMB04.ciena.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.16.203.100]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4A6CE49E6084B141B15C0713B8993F283204F87BSJEXCHMB12corpa_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/Iq-loUhoQ8sWDiuHklBhFJVvnmo>
Subject: Re: [mpls] draft-esale-mpls-ldp-node-frr-00
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Wed, 04 Nov 2015 01:38:45 -0000

Yes, my mistake. I just changed the subject to draft-saad-lsp-instant-install-rsvpte.

Thx
SD

From: Shah, Himanshu [mailto:hshah@ciena.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 5:33 PM
To: Shahram Davari; mpls@ietf.org
Subject: RE: draft-esale-mpls-ldp-node-frr-00

You meant tarek/george's draft and not esale draft

Thanks,
Himanshu

From: mpls [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Shahram Davari
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2015 10:30 AM
To: mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
Subject: [mpls] draft-esale-mpls-ldp-node-frr-00

Hi,

Although the problem the draft is trying to solve is a legitimate problem, but the solution has a number of issues:


1)      It requires ingress LER to impose a stack of labels that is potentially large. Existing HW can't currently support this and therefore this draft requires replacing all LER HW

2)      The solution requires all intermediate LSRs to support this new RSVP-TE extension.

3)      The QoS is not guaranteed. Since there is no correlation between ultimate LSP and the  DLL Stack. Since potentially many LSPs may be required to go through the same path and they will all use the same DLL stack.

4)      Switching multiple times to final LSP causes in flight packet drops and out of order delivery

5)      In a large MPLS network, There is no guarantee that the RESV message comes back with low delay.


Thx
Shahram

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email