Re: [mpls] comment on draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time

Gregory Mirsky <gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com> Thu, 04 February 2016 07:10 UTC

Return-Path: <gregory.mirsky@ericsson.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 414551A0373; Wed, 3 Feb 2016 23:10:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 IL3BbOrIhwDb; Wed, 3 Feb 2016 23:10:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from usplmg20.ericsson.net (usplmg20.ericsson.net [198.24.6.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B61BC1A026C; Wed, 3 Feb 2016 23:10:49 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c618062d-f79d16d000001b1c-a6-56b2f648c48d
Received: from EUSAAHC007.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.93]) by usplmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id E1.79.06940.846F2B65; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 07:57:12 +0100 (CET)
Received: from EUSAAMB103.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.120]) by EUSAAHC007.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.93]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 02:10:48 -0500
From: Gregory Mirsky <gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com>
To: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, "draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time@ietf.org>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org>, "CCAMP (ccamp@ietf.org)" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: comment on draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time
Thread-Index: AQHRXDT5bSUNiSX6T0W7JnL+kOquQJ8bfEvg
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2016 07:10:47 +0000
Message-ID: <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF112219BF943@eusaamb103.ericsson.se>
References: <56AE1C2E.4040109@labn.net>
In-Reply-To: <56AE1C2E.4040109@labn.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.11]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrNLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXRPrK7Ht01hBj0tuhZP5txgsTh84RS7 RUfzWxaLW0tXslq0/tjB4sDqsWTJTyaPD5ua2QKYorhsUlJzMstSi/TtErgyjhzdyVjwRrBi bod+A+MGwS5GTg4JAROJhmMr2CFsMYkL99azdTFycQgJHGGUWPT7JDuEs4xRovPQSTaQKjYB I4kXG3vAEiIC9xklNh1dxgSSEBYwk2j8sJsRxBYRMJd40bSbCcI2krjwZAaYzSKgInGq9wVz FyMHB6+Ar8StXwEgYSEBdYkXew4xgoQ5BTQkdt7UAwkzAh30/dQasE5mAXGJW0/mM0EcKiCx ZM95ZghbVOLl43+sELaSxMff89lBxjALaEqs36UP0aooMaX7IdiPvAKCEidnPmGZwCg6C8nU WQgds5B0zELSsYCRZRUjR2lxQU5uupHBJkZglByTYNPdwXh/uuchRgEORiUeXgO/TWFCrIll xZW5hxglOJiVRHi9XgKFeFMSK6tSi/Lji0pzUosPMUpzsCiJ8y51WB8mJJCeWJKanZpakFoE k2Xi4JRqYLRMPrlw3pyOk+nHWnQFS/POM/D97Pq6Uqv7UPfe2bdzJh2fXtqvvIDfZ8MnTu46 tkULDn6znzyT+al5a+Oai6fZv37KinP+8W9VzZQbHzR8LzrJf1l8XLe6oOXMYR85fl5W6RRL bavs0+suHp/e5ascc6BAnMGZ2cu3+OG0/ecN5S539jIvbFZiKc5INNRiLipOBACK+oJ/jgIA AA==
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/aNV592-_kgYmlzUfMPpSmwOcQ2E>
Subject: Re: [mpls] comment on draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time
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: Thu, 04 Feb 2016 07:10:52 -0000

Hi Lou,
I've followed on your suggestion to investigate use of already available objects. I’ve looked into LSP_ATTRIBUTES Object [RFC5420]. Per my analysis we can consider two options:
•         introduce RSO sub-objects with RTM_Capability sub-TLVs ordered as defined in the current RTM draft, to be used in LSP_ATTRIBUTES Object;
•         use RRO Attributes sub-object that will be present in RRO Object and define new RTM Capability Flag(s) from IANA Attribute Flags registry. Rules defined in Section 7.3 RFC 5420 would apply.
Number of Attribute flags is variable, thus the latter option is as flexible as the former or current option documented in our draft.
 
Greatly appreciate your consideration, comments, suggestions.

	Regards,
		Greg


-----Original Message-----
From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net] 
Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2016 10:38 PM
To: draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time@ietf.org; mpls@ietf.org
Subject: comment on draft-ietf-mpls-residence-time

Hi,
	I see you propose defining a new RSVP object class that has application specific scope.  As I'm sure you know the RSVP class-number space is really small so it's best to avoid allocating new object classes whenever possible.  I believe there is an existing object class that you can use for your purposes -- the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object.

Have you considered carrying RTM Hops in 1 (or three,  depending on if you want sub-tlvs or not) new RTM Attribute TLV (or TLVs)?

If not, I think it is worth exploring the viability of this approach or any other approach that doesn't require the allocation of a new class-num.

Lou
(As contributor and TEAS co-chair)