Re: [OSPF] [CCAMP] draft-giacalone-ospf-te-express-path-01
Spencer Giacalone <spencer.giacalone@gmail.com> Wed, 22 June 2011 13:17 UTC
Return-Path: <spencer.giacalone@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 BA9EA11E80D8; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 06:17:24 -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 DwkNbVp31kHI; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 06:17:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3793511E80D4; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 06:17:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iye7 with SMTP id 7so927721iye.31 for <multiple recipients>; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 06:17:20 -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=ywNQul6FJAopR5fT+xXKNVmf4m89jXrGc5/n8SSKNyA=; b=MHRsc4qRV8ieo+H8FxtdZlsYOBO+Hf0u03RIcjJFhe62SuIqpH/BxWSc23QggJd8cT c3dyHMuo1ZyDDcfiw+LX23DHO+wDlR8ivQEpI2AYip0qh9SrclKd7WfQ3NxlvKTOboUe U37PDTRU4nCpw4m/gC3u4YLNzK0KNMMwTOO0I=
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=QNjVJrYII+huT8CP4hLE3GZ3zO4zzqCnyDLZNEZkOtSbfX/zdyeNfDMLVR7O325l/Q dK1ESAiRQ1Sn4aUPuAMBMFEyF3Ceusit/5rbM1zwDk21HlMWKn0JfLiAkwMxbS8Qgg7w fdZMYoeU4BC26r/CyYUYwRDwxsCy0ODUOGjFg=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.42.156.195 with SMTP id a3mr778825icx.460.1308748640534; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 06:17:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.231.143.79 with HTTP; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 06:17:20 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <6268B75A-0841-4F97-BC85-589CECF97FD3@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>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 09:17:20 -0400
Message-ID: <BANLkTinMmZ5ZDrv-9Paw2Sk+ack4NOxqpw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Spencer Giacalone <spencer.giacalone@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] [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 13:17:24 -0000
That was our thought as well. Also, Dave Ward did have some conversations with Lou. Spence On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 8:40 AM, Acee Lindem <acee.lindem@ericsson.com> 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] 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