Re: [OSPF] Re: [Fwd: [mpls] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-number-0-bw-te-lsps-02.txt]

JP Vasseur <jvasseur@cisco.com> Fri, 01 December 2006 01:53 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gpxak-00021b-D2; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 20:53:30 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gpxaj-0001wm-5o; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 20:53:29 -0500
Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com ([171.68.10.87]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gpxah-0007nm-Sa; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 20:53:29 -0500
Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([64.102.121.158]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Nov 2006 17:53:27 -0800
Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id kB11rQRw030038; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 20:53:26 -0500
Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id kB11rQDM020910; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 20:53:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: from xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.21]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 30 Nov 2006 20:53:25 -0500
Received: from [10.86.104.179] ([10.86.104.179]) by xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 30 Nov 2006 20:53:25 -0500
In-Reply-To: <200612010148.kB11m8o2061362@workhorse.brookfield.occnc.com>
References: <200612010148.kB11m8o2061362@workhorse.brookfield.occnc.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; delsp="yes"; format="flowed"
Message-Id: <133D69D4-43D7-46D0-88E5-80FD8CB25CCF@cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: JP Vasseur <jvasseur@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Re: [Fwd: [mpls] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-number-0-bw-te-lsps-02.txt]
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 20:53:21 -0500
To: curtis@occnc.com
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Dec 2006 01:53:25.0540 (UTC) FILETIME=[7D4CBE40:01C714EB]
DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1224; t=1164938006; x=1165802006; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim1001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=jvasseur@cisco.com; z=From:=20JP=20Vasseur=20<jvasseur@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[OSPF]=20Re=3A=20[Fwd=3A=20[mpls]=20WG=20Last=20Call= 20on=20draft-ietf-mpls-number-0-bw-te-lsps-02.txt]=20 |Sender:=20 |To:=20curtis@occnc.com; bh=BPd12xBa+zoogHIUHSGXIoNHXmlxfeVqo2nFkl4ftu4=; b=eF4MHklYLO/qAFxc2g6ArfpIJNA1nRibHI6GRLjR9VdSSbqkgCQZ/W1vcEpiwyjhIeOldCvx ypI7CpmHKdQH8uMGnOMaRYFtVuyF9Vbk9AvmhCVadFfuYhRoLRaPbs/W;
Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1; header.From=jvasseur@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim1001 verified; );
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 39bd8f8cbb76cae18b7e23f7cf6b2b9f
Cc: George Swallow <swallow@cisco.com>, rtg-dir@ietf.org, isis-wg@ietf.org, ospf@ietf.org, David Ward <dward@cisco.com>, Loa Andersson <loa@pi.se>
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <ospf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/ospf>
List-Post: <mailto:ospf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ospf-bounces@ietf.org

Hi Curtis,

On Nov 30, 2006, at 8:48 PM, Curtis Villamizar wrote:

>
> In message <4354A088-B93C-457F-93FD-55B8EB4A861A@cisco.com>
> JP Vasseur writes:
>>
>> Other attributes such as affinity should be used to not allows 0-bw
>> TE LSP to traverse a specific link. This TLV is only used to report
>> the number of such TE LSPs traversing the link.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> JP.
>
>
> The provider already has the necessary tools that can be used to
> accomplish this.  If a general purpose tool (attributes and
> affinities) is available which accomplishes something a special
> purpose tool to accomplish the same thing is not needed.
>
> Such a tool would only be useful if the administration of the MPLS
> midpoint (where the attribute is set) had no control over the
> administration of the MPLS ingress or a border that is doing route
> computation (where the affinity is set).  I don't see any anticipated
> real world deployment that would benefit from this.  If you do, then
> please explain the deployment scenario.
>

not sure to see your point here ... I was mentioning that the aim of  
this TLV was not to avoid some links.
Looks like you're saying the same thing.

JP.

> Curtis

_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
OSPF@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf