Re: [OSPF] [CCAMP] draft-giacalone-ospf-te-express-path-01
Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Wed, 22 June 2011 15:17 UTC
Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
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 8008611E808E for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 08:17:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.238
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.238 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.027, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 d8thHGfQDJzp for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 08:17:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oproxy6-pub.bluehost.com (oproxy6-pub.bluehost.com [67.222.54.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 9E6E411E80BA for <ospf@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 08:17:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 4249 invoked by uid 0); 22 Jun 2011 15:16:26 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box313.bluehost.com) (69.89.31.113) by cpoproxy3.bluehost.com with SMTP; 22 Jun 2011 15:16:26 -0000
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=labn.net; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:X-Enigmail-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Identified-User; b=prq3HFT8RgPqrYEkVEmO6955THZAn1rBEkMRZktvhXv0dWO7DfrhHFmSr4AExXp9LPPczLakg5JnsRuxxCeiiRWzQAGL48MSrXYSX06ZVJ0MQW04W4E/dG1sPKugu+wV;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113] helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1QZPAI-0004M6-KX; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 09:16:26 -0600
Message-ID: <4E020749.8050404@labn.net>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 11:16:25 -0400
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Acee Lindem <acee.lindem@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> <BANLkTinCKqk+LM+J6=1quLYuHuYHLx6Daw@mail.gmail.com> <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB333163A0A803F422@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net> <6268B75A-0841-4F97-BC85-589CECF97FD3@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <6268B75A-0841-4F97-BC85-589CECF97FD3@ericsson.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net}
Cc: CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>, OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] [CCAMP] 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 15:17:20 -0000
OSPF WG for the OSPF extensions seems very reasonable to me ;-) I still hope that the OSPF portions of draft-wang-ccamp-latency-te-metric can be combined with draft-giacalone-ospf-te-express-path given that both drafts state that they are addressing essentially the same high-level problem. Lou On 6/22/2011 8:40 AM, Acee Lindem wrote: > Hi John, > As it stands, the draft contains mainly OSPF TE encodings and considerations. Hence, my inclination would be to keep it in the OSPF WG. However, I'm willing to listen to other proposals. > > Thanks, > Acee > On Jun 21, 2011, at 11:10 PM, John E Drake wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I am a bit confused. I thought the proper home for this work would either be the rtg wg or the mpls wg. I thought it was presented to the OSPF wg for information only. >> >> Thanks, >> >> John >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf >>> Of Alia Atlas >>> Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 6:45 PM >>> To: Acee Lindem >>> Cc: Spencer Giacalone; CCAMP; OSPF WG List >>> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] [OSPF] draft-giacalone-ospf-te-express-path-01 >>> >>> 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 >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> CCAMP mailing list >>> CCAMP@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp > > _______________________________________________ > 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