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 12:33 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gq7Zi-00086A-EU; Fri, 01 Dec 2006 07:33:06 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gq7Zg-00085B-UM; Fri, 01 Dec 2006 07:33:04 -0500
Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com ([171.68.10.87]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gq7Zf-0006Ts-Jn; Fri, 01 Dec 2006 07:33:04 -0500
Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([64.102.121.158]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 01 Dec 2006 04:33:01 -0800
Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12]) by rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id kB1CX0d5006428; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 07:33:00 -0500
Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id kB1CX0YJ020969; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 07:33:00 -0500 (EST)
Received: from xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.21]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 1 Dec 2006 07:33:00 -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); Fri, 1 Dec 2006 07:32:59 -0500
In-Reply-To: <200612010243.kB12hPqt062617@workhorse.brookfield.occnc.com>
References: <200612010243.kB12hPqt062617@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: <285A9D7C-8A64-46CE-89CF-0C26B98F995E@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: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 07:32:57 -0500
To: curtis@occnc.com
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Dec 2006 12:32:59.0772 (UTC) FILETIME=[D61FDBC0:01C71544]
DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1975; t=1164976380; x=1165840380; 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=Aih36499HOqTosU68vGgaifJmeykdrE2zf+LpD6bJwA=; b=Dv50bfzdt5V0lMNb/IfV4mQLV5IURuJCiA9pc5nKDPteqInPVIw14kzknlpqktU0AvoXGYRr o44VcMHzVDoYMsf3mFDuvpmmVa4hgeJ1KlA1nrRsp2Dd4ZzHdTaiVceC;
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: b4a0a5f5992e2a4954405484e7717d8c
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

On Nov 30, 2006, at 9:43 PM, Curtis Villamizar wrote:

>
> In message <133D69D4-43D7-46D0-88E5-80FD8CB25CCF@cisco.com>
> JP Vasseur writes:
>>
>> 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
>
>
> My point was regarding a mention in that conversation that the value
> of zero might mean no zero-BW LSPs have been set up or none are
> allowed.  Looks like I cut the wrong paragraph out of the
> conversation.
>
> The existing link attributes and affinity are sufficient to indicate
> the condition that no zero-BW LSPs are allowed if the administration
> of that network decides to use an attribute for that purpose.
>
> I'm agreeing with you.

great, thanks.

Cheers.

JP.

>
> Curtis

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