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

Curtis Villamizar <curtis@occnc.com> Fri, 01 December 2006 02:28 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gpy8y-0000v8-6c; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 21:28:52 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gpy8w-0000tO-U9; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 21:28:50 -0500
Received: from [69.37.59.173] (helo=workhorse.brookfield.occnc.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gpy8v-0006Vi-Hc; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 21:28:50 -0500
Received: from workhorse.brookfield.occnc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by workhorse.brookfield.occnc.com (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id kB12hPqt062617; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 21:43:25 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from curtis@workhorse.brookfield.occnc.com)
Message-Id: <200612010243.kB12hPqt062617@workhorse.brookfield.occnc.com>
To: 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]
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 30 Nov 2006 20:53:21 EST." <133D69D4-43D7-46D0-88E5-80FD8CB25CCF@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 21:43:25 -0500
From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@occnc.com>
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 3e15cc4fdc61d7bce84032741d11c8e5
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
Reply-To: curtis@occnc.com
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

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.

Curtis

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