IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Teas] <draft-sitaraman-sr-rsvp-coexistence-rec> -- Open Thread

Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vishnupavan@gmail.com> Tue, 28 February 2017 19:50 UTC

Return-Path: <vishnupavan@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EFA612969B for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 11:50:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.989
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.989 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 XXslOXKzuVhL for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 11:50:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ua0-x22b.google.com (mail-ua0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 932A612969A for <teas@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 11:50:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ua0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id 72so25831275uaf.3 for <teas@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 11:50:35 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=VV9Gnl0PyH9x7G0qmy+Fc4eUulTC8499LMc2TSoXkKo=; b=OUphiJFpGpO0/b9J1J75HiRErasANW1TbfVxPiN6d+wQ9R/zQrzPmBCeGIIQ1OzKpP z/aBYoGaqNsmTEJOG1kK1ly3HYiIq6W5+uP93norfuPB3gh7aPI/UnglVcCyzw/uq//5 KRUZV1RI4PpdI1mcIG9+WaUzJIoA0TFksW52qgQJNh30+IE0xBXyYD28ZvB+igbI1Ham NFgVLgicSGgW3AKDwaLJcrqa1OiSh0HTt/UWtD2bJjXin2t9uGPPJXDEUKrGE0CWVvMW NXujxjOT5itQcxNZpZj6U5llC338+lls+yX4/wfl2u4EqzpLRCE2Lait9nv/lAM+ukzN dKfA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=VV9Gnl0PyH9x7G0qmy+Fc4eUulTC8499LMc2TSoXkKo=; b=Bh/0NkUEqHLX4fgdTlODy9M40ZPNxOLzYoyj/Wew97VfNdMI42Md6/eKijZdaukf8v 1MP1Tp3JPTHch+zPJBGg0psUYofSyt236I2CUcVUZC6LUeYKxPzgw4sDp6pVfzz+NRxu ej/+DBU/Fh5GpaIcu3H2ARrBC8/rJZ+LObNHQeH8a1kLSTAppsTBfUh7EUPNt/bz4gmC /iKghOFMbByLJC8rW95qnQFuF70FWxUc4hmCleXHDn8nBzCdJbj9VsPwREXPL4BEUFa+ MZTyzPSFFe0Cxos2RHkiDpWY36wBnTunuya19xXTVR+bRcQy16JVGhfpC2GPq/Vd1ZGE VK4A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39m9CFjNXDQEiNkfCawErXLrxLPVgG9T6fv1f+CVe4rFbFfHedKQZDA21mQ1sIK6Rg/j7hKnQrAwPEXWDA==
X-Received: by 10.176.85.197 with SMTP id w5mr1995324uaa.36.1488311434718; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 11:50:34 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.31.159.20 with HTTP; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 11:50:34 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CA+YzgTu=GQciOt79DqaN3P=krfDmsB3fYRthqtLknSF29E3D4w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+YzgTvPTRAxMK5EGCF1Y2nsSZZhyW_Rq1gQPvieMdCB70c04w@mail.gmail.com> <CAMZsk6cQRvCNC1ob3Y3TD5aXMsOpkbVT9-Qi9B2=LD84GmS5oQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA+YzgTu=GQciOt79DqaN3P=krfDmsB3fYRthqtLknSF29E3D4w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vishnupavan@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 14:50:34 -0500
Message-ID: <CA+YzgTtj5SiZXyc26RF6ifW_1hCGegoc0awXTWfsX+D97n0G5w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045e3f4a61b62305499c823b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/GYQPwgiPQ1We4-TdPM93Vn1ZZtw>
Cc: "Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)" <rgandhi@cisco.com>, Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.dhody@huawei.com>, "teas@ietf.org" <teas@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Teas] <draft-sitaraman-sr-rsvp-coexistence-rec> -- Open Thread
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <teas.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/teas/>
List-Post: <mailto:teas@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 19:50:37 -0000

Rakesh,
We recently posted a new revision for this draft (
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sitaraman-sr-rsvp-coexistence-rec-02).
This new version addresses all comments related to DS-TE.

WG,
Please do let us know if there are any further questions/comments. At this
juncture, we would like to request this draft to be considered for adoption.

Regards,
-Pavan (as a co-author)



On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vishnupavan@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Rakesh, Hi!
>
> Thanks for bringing this up. We'll look at adding some text covering
> DS-TE in the next version.
>
> Regards,
> -Pavan
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 4:48 AM, Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Pavan,
>>
>> For the option where max-res-bw is adjusted, it would be good to add in
>> the document what happens to Diff-Serve TE BC model RDM, MAM and MAR
>> bandwidth pools.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Rakesh
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Vishnu Pavan Beeram <
>> vishnupavan@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Folks, Hi!
>>>
>>> We presented <draft-sitaraman-sr-rsvp-coexistence-rec> in yesterday's
>>> morning session. Unfortunately, we didn't have any time left to take
>>> questions. So, I'm opening up a thread for folks to post their
>>> questions/concerns.
>>>
>>> Dhruv (on cc) had a couple of questions and I'll start this thread with
>>> responses to those --
>>>
>>> (1) Why can't you do only SR on the controller and leave RSVP-TE control
>>> stay distributed?
>>> The base requirement for this “co-existence arrangement” is to ensure
>>> that the placement of SR LSPs in the same domain DOES NOT introduce any
>>> inaccuracies in the TED that is used by distributed or centralized RSVP
>>> Path computation engines. If your SR-LSPs are management by a
>>> centralized controller and you don't have the SR utilization information
>>> somehow reflected in the TED used by distributed RSVP-TE path computation
>>> engines, it would result in the TED information being not accurate.
>>>
>>> (2) With Option-5, wouldn't there be issues if not all nodes in the
>>> network support the recommended procedure?
>>> You do need the recommended procedure to be applied on all RSVP-TE nodes
>>> in the domain. If not, the TED information would not be completely
>>> accurate. This is TRUE for the other options as well -- the chosen option
>>> would need to be uniformly applied to all relevant nodes in the network.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> -Pavan
>>>
>>> ps: I believe Rakesh (on cc) had a question as well, but couldn't get
>>> his chance. @Rakesh -- Please do post your question here and we (the
>>> authors) will respond to it.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Teas mailing list
>>> Teas@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>>>
>>>
>>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email