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

Lou Berger <> Thu, 17 September 2015 15:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B3C31A870F for <>; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 08:21:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.667
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.667 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3QprF_sZN3MZ for <>; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 08:21:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with SMTP id 056C51A1AA6 for <>; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 08:21:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 2127 invoked by uid 0); 17 Sep 2015 15:21:38 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO cmgw3) ( by with SMTP; 17 Sep 2015 15:21:38 -0000
Received: from ([]) by cmgw3 with id JMMQ1r01X2SSUrH01MMU9s; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 15:21:37 -0600
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=GpXRpCFC c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=wU2YTnxGAAAA:8 a=cNaOj0WVAAAA:8 a=N659UExz7-8A:10 a=-NfooI8aBGcA:10 a=uEJ9t1CZtbIA:10 a=ff-B7xzCdYMA:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=osuDTejiygZ2wiPNmqQA:9 a=pILNOxqGKmIA:10
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:From:Cc:References:To:Subject; bh=IJ7b/Om51twWdT6k+i45E0aDo/2x1htVPNC4HPlswFI=; b=O9tbXEkosJpRt0NEBV4gS3Vh0x4WLoYREPcteMM5rMQHveTRK8aOdJPqXdOelelkS4IP1drPdWpfmSXzi2hKkl8DSGE1KRMN3RVjR5jOSlzOHPX2D1/8we3eplQPTVHh;
Received: from ([]:57216 helo=[]) by with esmtpa (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from <>) id 1Zcb01-0002Uc-U6; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 09:21:26 -0600
To: "" <>,
References: <>
From: Lou Berger <>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 11:21:10 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Identified-User: {} {sentby:smtp auth authed with}
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [mpls] progressing draft-mtaillon-mpls-summary-frr-rsvpte
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 15:21:41 -0000

I have some comments on the proposed mechanism (I have no opinion on
utility or likely implementation):


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.


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:

   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
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.


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 (
> /Loa