Re: [mpls] Progressing Resdience Time Measurement draft

Gregory Mirsky <> Tue, 02 February 2016 01:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D57421A1B8B for <>; Mon, 1 Feb 2016 17:26:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.201
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F2W4C_Rw4s2e for <>; Mon, 1 Feb 2016 17:26:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB5DB1A1B8A for <>; Mon, 1 Feb 2016 17:26:32 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c6180641-f799c6d000007d66-17-56b005b48dc4
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id A0.2F.32102.4B500B65; Tue, 2 Feb 2016 02:26:12 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Mon, 1 Feb 2016 20:26:31 -0500
From: Gregory Mirsky <>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <>, Loa Andersson <>
Thread-Topic: [mpls] Progressing Resdience Time Measurement draft
Thread-Index: AQHRWi+i4aCoaj+USzqP2deJ9ymVRJ8U2EGwgAC/YoCAAmITYA==
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2016 01:26:27 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFupnkeLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42KZXLonSncL64Ywg92zpSwmv53HbHHv821G i39z5zBb3Fq6ktWBxWPK742sHkuW/GTymDW9jc3jy+XPbAEsUVw2Kak5mWWpRfp2CVwZU48+ ZC74o1Fx6NoOtgbGL+pdjJwcEgImEutft7BC2GISF+6tZ+ti5OIQEjjCKPHv30oWCGcZo8TO N4/ZQKrYBIwkXmzsYQexRQRcJKZf2sAKUsQs0MEo0XTrFNgoYQEHibV9C4G6OYCKHCV+nEmF qHeSmPz6G1gvi4CKxLEnX5hAbF4BX4mZPc2MEMsmMkrcOnsCLMEpoCOxavJRZhCbEei876fW gMWZBcQlbj2ZzwRxtoDEkj3nmSFsUYmXj/9BvaMkMef1NWaQG5gFNCXW79KHaFWUmNL9kB1i r6DEyZlPWCYwis1CMnUWQscsJB2zkHQsYGRZxchRWlyQk5tuZLiJERhNxyTYHHcw7u31PMQo wMGoxMNb8Hh9mBBrYllxZe4hRgkOZiUR3pXvgUK8KYmVValF+fFFpTmpxYcYpTlYlMR55zoD pQTSE0tSs1NTC1KLYLJMHJxSDYwCTnPrLscd3a7tmim3N2ZBVpSBbntQVaVaYENwyaUPRvP/ sQgX6GyzWPNadK/Av2VzJtnNFOlZ5rVUdVna7cueXV+WXZt16uCxOw4c9zalT84r2pWgmuIy 80vWDo0nB/VMvn++t2bZjpDoHU4dajNc9hzJ+nqoxfha9p0lE3Zmmmxy0j1tXpyoxFKckWio xVxUnAgAr1qFNqICAAA=
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Progressing Resdience Time Measurement draft
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: Tue, 02 Feb 2016 01:26:35 -0000

Hi Acee,
you've likely noticed very interesting discussion of RTM applicability in Segment Routing environment. We'll be studying this use case and start a new draft. But the SPRING use case of RTM, in my view, justifies already proposed in the document IGP TLV extensions.
What do you think about RTM in SPRING case? Would you agree to the proposed IGP extensions?


-----Original Message-----
From: Acee Lindem (acee) [] 
Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2016 4:51 AM
To: Gregory Mirsky; Loa Andersson
Subject: Re: [mpls] Progressing Resdience Time Measurement draft

Hi Greg,
That sounds like a good plan.

On 1/30/16, 8:36 PM, "Gregory Mirsky" <> wrote:

>Hi Acee,
>thank you for your thorough review and OSPF insights.
>I've updated reference to RFC 7684 in the new -01 version.
>When we were starting work on RTM we intended to address LDP signaled 
>IP/MPLS networks as well and that, as I recall, was the reason to use 
>more generic IGP TLVs rather than TE-specific. Since LDP drifted out of 
>scope, I agree, use of TE advertisements is more suitable. We'll work 
>on that and share new update with you and the IGP WGs.
>	Regards,
>		Greg
>-----Original Message-----
>From: mpls [] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem 
>Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 4:55 PM
>To: Loa Andersson
>Subject: Re: [mpls] Progressing Resdience Time Measurement draft
>I’ve read the subject draft and think it offers a useful function to 
>facilitate more accurate time synchronization in NTP/PTP deployments. 
>One question I have is why the capability is signaled in the generic 
>IGP TLV LSAs and LSPs rather than the TE advertisements when the 
>document is scoped to RSVP-TE [RFC3209] LSPs? One reason I ask is that 
>we are waiting on implementations of the OSPFv3 Extended LSAs draft. 
>Having said that,
>OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 have separate registry for the TLV LSAs and section 8 
>should reflect this. Also, OSPF Prefix/Link Attributes is now RFC 7684.
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Loa Andersson []
>>Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 7:23 PM
>>To: Gregory Mirsky;;
>>Subject: Re: [mpls] Progressing Resdience Time Measurement draft 
>>Working Group and authors, <chair hat off> As a matter of fact I 
>>believe this document should be progressed.
>><chair hat on>
>>This draft has been a working group document since early August, but 
>>there has been no discussion on the document on the wg mailing list.
>>There are of course two ways if interpreting this.
>>- there is total agreement on the draft
>>- there is no intrest in the draft
>>I have no basis to decide which is the case.
>>Can we plese have at least a few (non-author) comments on the mailing 
>>list if it is time to start the wglc.
>>mpls wg co-chair
>>On 2015-12-15 07:21, Gregory Mirsky wrote:
>>Dear Chairs of the MPLS WG,
>>>authors of the Residence Time Measurement in MPLS Network draft 
>>>believe that all comments received during the WG adoption call been 
>>>Thus, authors would like to ask the WG Chairs to consider WG LC as 
>>>the next step.
>>>                 Regards,
>>>                                 Greg 
>>>mpls mailing list
>mpls mailing list