Re: [OSPF] draft-giacalone-ospf-te-express-path-01
Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> Wed, 22 June 2011 01:45 UTC
Return-Path: <akatlas@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0E3C21F8531; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 18:45:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8weTHb6v3aXO; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 18:45:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pv0-f172.google.com (mail-pv0-f172.google.com [74.125.83.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC95A21F8530; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 18:45:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pvh18 with SMTP id 18so224710pvh.31 for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 18:45:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=9LzweupfQ7a+2myZL6v28MH5MKU1zPHqVIpuCCcDbaw=; b=ldFYJVi4bb2SNlPUYUxjAjLa+VLKKrsXPfv60kEbmz0bbFJ+YgZa2wSvfiyoutryKg g1T9u3YORQ+jWuwZSMd1q16YzPszYgeHhzhhYCObVZ3AuzMqDuJq+iqwIBA+/0/ILPbq unRkDufHya3lqpLm+ljOpUe8ktRQekLk1CqsY=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=UMl9negi25Yc6mM8GRp+ofvwUzwhKshaOiHOCXoYkUdGRVZfNh4n3QSe3EYVrkX3Ab QlK0zycST9LKFTjMgByCTKt7xiBysso0QBoG7heoFjpr8uh/VA7LGVjq35+JQbgi7h0w lUVxJZtSkD/wF2f7wMFsYoPxO3JGgNHLgP7sc=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.49.227 with SMTP id x3mr50637pbn.33.1308707104474; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 18:45:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.46.98 with HTTP; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 18:45:04 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <9AA9A2E7-ECDC-4FF0-A1B0-00808617D764@ericsson.com>
References: <BANLkTimtJPOO+-atPS=YvkngZd2dmX-W6w@mail.gmail.com> <A04F4AB9-8D0B-4EBC-B69E-06ACD6B49697@ericsson.com> <BANLkTim7C4b3CGkpwSoA6Aro=OX4ZXNZgw@mail.gmail.com> <9AA9A2E7-ECDC-4FF0-A1B0-00808617D764@ericsson.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 21:45:04 -0400
Message-ID: <BANLkTinCKqk+LM+J6=1quLYuHuYHLx6Daw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
To: Acee Lindem <acee.lindem@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>, OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] draft-giacalone-ospf-te-express-path-01
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <ospf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ospf>
List-Post: <mailto:ospf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 01:45:06 -0000
Hi Acee, I do agree that we should explicitly document this in the draft & work on better names for the sub-TLVs that might be confused. I also agree that we need to give the decision explicit consideration; to give this the exposure necessary and consideration for applications was why we had this draft discussed in rtgwg as well as ospf. In addition to the obvious uses for RSVP-TE, another potential application is the idea of a path-weighted ECMP, where traffic is split to the different next-hops based upon the total path bandwidths out those next-hops. This is a pure IP application (LDP follows of course) and I'd prefer not to lose track of those options when considering the RSVP-TE applications. Alia On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 9:06 PM, Acee Lindem <acee.lindem@ericsson.com> wrote: > Hi Alia, > I guess I agree with Lou - heretofore, we've done TE requirements in the MPLS/CCAMP WGs and the TE encodings in the IGP WGs. I think we should give the decision explicit consideration before we branch off and do TE for application X independently. Additionally, if we do decide to split this off independently, an E-mail to the list saying there is no overlap is not sufficient to move forward. At a minimum, I believe we need to: > > 1. Explicitly document this alternate applicability and relationship to existing TE in the draft. > 2. Determine whether any sub-TLVs can be shared (my opinion was consistent with yours that there are not due to differences in requirements and measurement). > 3. Assure the sub-TLVs are appropriately named to avoid confusion between the latency applications. > > Thanks, > Acee > On Jun 21, 2011, at 2:08 PM, Alia Atlas wrote: > >> Hi Acee, >> >> John Drake and I did take a look at the draft mentioned in CCAMP. It >> had a large number of requirements and extensions to >> a number of different protocols. There is one sub-TLV (latency) that >> appears the same - but the expectations >> as to averaging vs. instantaneous were different. >> >> The OSPF TE Express Path work is fairly self-contained and doesn't >> specify in exact detail how the information >> for the sub-TLVs is measured or obtained. I think it could be used >> for multiple purposes. >> >> Alia >> >> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Acee Lindem <acee.lindem@ericsson.com> wrote: >>> Hi Spencer (CCAMP copied as well), >>> >>> Here is a link for everyone's convenience: >>> >>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-giacalone-ospf-te-express-path-01.txt >>> >>> At IETF 80, there were questions about overlap with other CCAMP drafts containing interface delay metrics and proposals for new TE sub-TLVs. Have you or your co-authors, done looked at how your draft is positioned versus these other drafts? While these applications have differing goals, the CCAMP/OSPF chairs requested that this analysis be done. >>> >>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-wang-ccamp-latency-te-metric-03.txt >>> >>> We would like to avoid having exactly the same information advertised in two different link Sub-TLVs. I'd hope we could agree on common units. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Acee >>> >>> On Jun 20, 2011, at 4:30 PM, Spencer Giacalone wrote: >>> >>>> Hello everyone, >>>> >>>> As you may have noticed, another version of the OSPF TE Express Path >>>> draft has been posted. We made a number of changes based on feedback >>>> from IETF 80. We invite your comments and suggestions. The main >>>> changes include: >>>> >>>> -We have consolidated some sub-TLVs for efficiency. There are no >>>> longer nominal and anomalous sub-TLVs for delay and loss. The >>>> functionality for signaling steady state verses abnormal performance >>>> for these parameters have been moved into two sub-TLVs (where we used >>>> to have four). >>>> >>>> -In order to advertise both normal and abnormal network performance >>>> state in consolidated sub-TLVs, a bit, called the anomalous (A) but >>>> has been added to certain sub-TLVs. The A bit is set when the measured >>>> value of a parameter exceeds a configured maximum threshold. The A bit >>>> is cleared when the measured value falls below its configured reuse >>>> threshold. If the A bit is clear, the sub-TLV represents steady state >>>> link performance. >>>> >>>> -We changed the encodings of certain variables from floating point to >>>> fixed point. This change permits the addition of the A bit (when >>>> necessary), it allows bit-space reservations to be made, and it >>>> permits a common TLV format across the bulk of the TLVs in the draft. >>>> In addition, the new encodings address concerns about granularity and >>>> interoperability. >>>> >>>> -We added sub-TLVs for Residual Bandwidth and Available Bandwidth. >>>> Residual bandwidth is defined as the Maximum Bandwidth [RFC3630] minus >>>> the bandwidth currently allocated to RSVP-TE LSPs. Available bandwidth >>>> is defined to be residual bandwidth minus the measured bandwidth used >>>> for the actual forwarding of non-RSVP-TE LSP packets. >>>> >>>> -Various other modifications were made across the draft. These >>>> include, but are not limited to, the abstract, the introduction, the >>>> thresholding specifications, and a number of field descriptions. >>>> >>>> -Last, but certainly not least, Stefano Providi has joined the draft >>>> >>>> We look forward to hearing your comments and concerns. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Spencer, Alia, Dave, John, Stefano >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> OSPF mailing list >>>> OSPF@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OSPF mailing list >>> OSPF@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf >>> > >
- [OSPF] draft-giacalone-ospf-te-express-path-01 Spencer Giacalone
- Re: [OSPF] draft-giacalone-ospf-te-express-path-01 Acee Lindem
- Re: [OSPF] draft-giacalone-ospf-te-express-path-01 Alia Atlas
- Re: [OSPF] draft-giacalone-ospf-te-express-path-01 Acee Lindem
- Re: [OSPF] draft-giacalone-ospf-te-express-path-01 Alia Atlas
- Re: [OSPF] [CCAMP] draft-giacalone-ospf-te-expres… John E Drake
- Re: [OSPF] [CCAMP] draft-giacalone-ospf-te-expres… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [OSPF] draft-giacalone-ospf-te-express-path-01 Acee Lindem
- Re: [OSPF] [CCAMP] draft-giacalone-ospf-te-expres… Acee Lindem
- Re: [OSPF] [CCAMP] draft-giacalone-ospf-te-expres… Spencer Giacalone
- Re: [OSPF] [CCAMP] draft-giacalone-ospf-te-expres… Lou Berger
- Re: [OSPF] [CCAMP] draft-giacalone-ospf-te-expres… fu.xihua
- Re: [OSPF] [CCAMP] draft-giacalone-ospf-te-expres… Vishwas Manral
- Re: [OSPF] [CCAMP] draft-giacalone-ospf-te-expres… fu.xihua
- Re: [OSPF] [CCAMP] draft-giacalone-ospf-te-expres… Vishwas Manral
- Re: [OSPF] [CCAMP] draft-giacalone-ospf-te-expres… fu.xihua
- Re: [OSPF] [CCAMP] draft-giacalone-ospf-te-expres… Lou Berger
- Re: [OSPF] [CCAMP] draft-giacalone-ospf-te-expres… fu.xihua
- Re: [OSPF] [CCAMP] draft-giacalone-ospf-te-expres… fu.xihua
- Re: [OSPF] [CCAMP] draft-giacalone-ospf-te-expres… Lou Berger
- Re: [OSPF] [CCAMP] draft-giacalone-ospf-te-expres… fu.xihua