Re: [OSPF] Regarding draft-ppsenak-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-00

Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com> Thu, 05 November 2015 08:34 UTC

Return-Path: <ppsenak@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21B281A0033 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 00:34:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 wZjYOpb6DBbf for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 00:33:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bgl-iport-1.cisco.com (bgl-iport-1.cisco.com [72.163.197.25]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 604791A008E for <ospf@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 00:33:53 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1272; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1446712433; x=1447922033; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=h9hy4zKZMsVzs3mzgKJGtdCBeLyPdMQh0VNlL/Mrfwo=; b=U1C2Rynh/eoFTpbEpyJm45StEx55+x4Db91JE2cpP0Nkol7CGFxAxlab uEkQvrWhw96c4sG51vzMXzu8pjOoqC55JPTYOMcSp6kRfpuKXgZMmR0IX Wf6KVYCmlSS/P09Y+FGjrtUTd12r1rQKFWp1y+znRrwN3O7aXeGUJyBEe s=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CoBAAeEztW/xjFo0hewFaEBoYSAoIAAQEBAQEBgQuENQEBAQMBOEABBQsLGAkWDwkDAgECAUUGDQEHAQGIIgjCAAEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBGYZUhH6EQoR3AQSWSI0jiRuTJ2OEBT2FUwEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,246,1444694400"; d="scan'208";a="56252477"
Received: from vla196-nat.cisco.com (HELO bgl-core-1.cisco.com) ([72.163.197.24]) by bgl-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 05 Nov 2015 08:33:48 +0000
Received: from [10.60.140.52] (ams-ppsenak-nitro3.cisco.com [10.60.140.52]) by bgl-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id tA58XkEX029425; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 08:33:47 GMT
Message-ID: <563B1469.1090303@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2015 09:33:45 +0100
From: Peter Psenak <ppsenak@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Julien Meuric <julien.meuric@orange.com>
References: <D24CF2B7.37452%acee@cisco.com> <BLUPR05MB292E9628E4172C733C59BA8A9380@BLUPR05MB292.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <5627CDF6.605@cisco.com> <BLUPR05MB292B99DA8B1B9E253A0E83BA9380@BLUPR05MB292.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <5627F457.8020701@cisco.com> <BLUPR05MB2927E888C41831AF2786280A9270@BLUPR05MB292.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CAG4d1rctdk6QcrhjEj2n-1VM2HTzQJvFxgamneis+fsiH0rcTw@mail.gmail.com> <562917FE.6070100@cisco.com> <563B1160.9040804@orange.com>
In-Reply-To: <563B1160.9040804@orange.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/G0ZbzTUD54bSkV3ID4Ku0-XOCyY>
Cc: OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Regarding draft-ppsenak-ospf-te-link-attr-reuse-00
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 05 Nov 2015 08:34:00 -0000

Julien,

On 11/5/15 09:20 , Julien Meuric wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> One more point below:
>
> Oct. 22, 2015 - Peter Psenak:
>>> The TE Opaque LSA would be, presumably, required if SPRING is supported
>>> which has no implications on whether RSVP-TE is enabled.
>>
>> SPRING does not use TE Opaque LSA.
>
> [JM] Just a quote from draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing:
> "The list of segments can be specified explicitly or implicitly via a
> set of abstract constraints (latency, affinity, SRLG, ...). In the
> latter case, a constraint-based path computation is used to determine
> the list of segments associated with the tunnel. The computation can be
> local or delegated to a PCE server."
> Though, in the Routing area, "constraint-based path computation" and
> "affinity, SRLG" usually rely on TE/GMPLS opaque LSAs, you may advocate
> this is only implicit...

that is fine. If you want to do traffic engineering, you should use TE 
Opaque LSAs.

We are talking about link attributes that are NOT used for TE at all. 
For example SRLG to be used for LFA. In that case you do NOT want to do 
any TE.

Peter

> However, when it comes to PCE, the references
> to RFC 3630 and 4203 extensions are explicit.
>
> Regards,
>
> Julien
> .
>