Re: [Teas] Comparison Analysis (TEAS WG Virtual Interim Meeting (before IETF-95))

Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vishnupavan@gmail.com> Sun, 24 January 2016 22:53 UTC

Return-Path: <vishnupavan@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11A781B344D; Sun, 24 Jan 2016 14:53:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 HE742WmApxb6; Sun, 24 Jan 2016 14:53:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vk0-x22a.google.com (mail-vk0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::22a]) (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 8FA151B344B; Sun, 24 Jan 2016 14:53:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vk0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id k1so65359283vkb.2; Sun, 24 Jan 2016 14:53:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=F06DaUWYmexvLvKHJy5zBX7VAoo3lUqH75W8Vj0w9EM=; b=CS3TdNIGlBiPs3pe9RFQPca/X+fG4Yglr+uQTphnhoPaQluhBMgYKElmBIqczP7qvn 4/xomuo4LxiYGSGvnHMF0cGULChAWiXNJayL8AO5hf2qsF++tvse43eCK8eO6vCSAS5J 9DPoxBsFxs6aNTyc1dKV/ZcPX39if/0IbwoOZYQSRPRO3rDoYLN6Oey/7M7dCakq+XVQ mVkPY+9SLKL3LQV6IrRZKPXcwn+WiE6XSQZTFjJ6w3XsZgb9+szEu9+HsYWRsmxZC8Gh SCPfcF48RBMR1Hg5+ojTuD0pTmlWYrLrI4wBeVUsFdmX+Ab4mvfAwuHXiUQpCEHcwgxQ Q7Sg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=F06DaUWYmexvLvKHJy5zBX7VAoo3lUqH75W8Vj0w9EM=; b=OyXc6+GdJi7G8qRJll9LrmXo0s+XIaAnPjZsLyyF+/vcsnnWxXvFSCeLAgkcPuSsEb CdoBezYJzFVEsA63ye4yuuVNlVnPYO/khNWyiR2oMXkQ6wTKkDaVOKVR4WAxAw2o7mvN Pxpm118jVdBGlwbbZTtDtX33UDIqVjdA7zxA19pTm8KJoGo5hwb7f2+/aKZXPCLfwvbd RFS83pFmSJlaEBkjUsAwj5MT4ytqSyn9xaxIWXH5RSyOjaS7drzJF39Cjafs+PFLIDJW EmzOJ42vdR6NnDQgrj5+CK3GbJb3qe1JGnJhPE7cPJNR0QNR/pZHRlE3IysXHOnzXDVz yejg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOSxbMk6hqlM3Ang+/FiMpF36h/Q/2gyyFVEofvCZDAhWO38cxZPhfW0Z0miVpFH7GZIDtx90KFbZwIGhA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.31.166.208 with SMTP id p199mr8918086vke.122.1453676011686; Sun, 24 Jan 2016 14:53:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.31.193.84 with HTTP; Sun, 24 Jan 2016 14:53:31 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <5316A0AB3C851246A7CA5758973207D44E4D14CE@SJCEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com>
References: <CA+YzgTtWFWX08ae=1yT29Sx8K040Cv9vAk5+pfA0Rhujf+LNHA@mail.gmail.com> <5316A0AB3C851246A7CA5758973207D44E4D14CE@SJCEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2016 17:53:31 -0500
Message-ID: <CA+YzgTsk-xR7XMhPfJNULgs2L-=wcb++iQWnJLZyhrPdB+=aNQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vishnupavan@gmail.com>
To: Huaimo Chen <huaimo.chen@huawei.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11416fbc4b92fb052a1c5207"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/_Wi2boGzmsIOAuhvp8biC_HfVm8>
Cc: Matt Hartley <mhartley@cisco.com>, "teas-chairs@ietf.org" <teas-chairs@ietf.org>, "teas@ietf.org" <teas@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Comparison Analysis (TEAS WG Virtual Interim Meeting (before IETF-95))
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Sun, 24 Jan 2016 22:53:35 -0000

Huaimo,

Much Thanks for putting this slide-set together. It will help drive the
discussion forward during the interim meeting.

It would be very useful if the comparative analysis covers all of the below
aspects for both approaches (please see if you can fill in the missing
pieces in your slide-set):

- Configuration Model: Discuss the "TE Tunnel" configuration needed for
requesting "ingress protection". Discuss other prerequisites (if any) for
configuring this.

- Protection Setup Procedures: Discuss the procedures on all relevant nodes
("primary ingress", " backup ingress" [,"proxy ingress"]) for setting up
the primary LSP and the corresponding backup LSP. A signaling sequence
diagram would be useful. Discuss the procedures for both "on path backup
ingress" and "off path backup ingress".

- Session Maintenance Procedures: Discuss the procedures on all relevant
nodes for maintaining (refreshes, triggers, teardown) primary-LSP state and
the corresponding backup-LSP state.

- Local Repair Procedures: Discuss the procedures that come into play at
the "backup ingress" when the "primary ingress" node failure is detected.

- "Revert to Primary Ingress" Procedures

- "Global Repair" Procedures

- Backwards Compatibility: Discuss "backwards compatibility" considerations
for the proposed signaling extensions/procedures.

- Scaling Considerations: Discuss "scaling considerations" (amount of
signaling state/messages to be maintained/processed).

- Security Considerations: Discuss "security considerations".

For items in the above list which do not entail any difference in the 2
approaches, just specify what is common to both.

****
Others in the WG,

If you disagree with any of the points made in the slide-set shared by
Huaimo, please plan on presenting your arguments.

****
Please do plan on sending your slides to the chairs and the secretary (Matt
on cc) by Wednesday.

Regards,
-Pavan

On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 11:26 PM, Huaimo Chen <huaimo.chen@huawei.com>
wrote:

> Hi Chairs,
>
>     Thanks for organizing the interim meeting.
>
>     Lou asked for technical trade-off discussion of the current options in
> the I-D, these are:
>
>         (1) Relay-Message Method
>
>         (2) Proxy-Ingress Method
>
> I conducted analysis and documented my results, these can be seen at:
> *http://www.slideshare.net/HuaimoChen/analysis-2methods*
> <http://www.slideshare.net/HuaimoChen/analysis-2methods>
> The findings include an example of both techniques. Looking forward to the
> interim call.
>
> Best Regards,
> Huaimo
>
>
> *From:* Teas [mailto:teas-bounces@ietf.org <teas-bounces@ietf.org>] *On
> Behalf Of *Vishnu Pavan Beeram
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 05, 2016 9:33 PM
> *To:* teas@ietf.org; teas-chairs@ietf.org
> *Subject:* [Teas] TEAS WG Virtual Interim Meeting (before IETF-95)
>
> Folks, Hi!
>
> Happy New Year!!
>
> We’d like the TEAS WG to hold a virtual interim meeting before IETF-95 to
> cover the following topic -
>
> "RSVP Ingress Protection / Egress Protection” -- target meeting the week
> of 25 January 2015 (with a second meeting possible if needed):
> The main purpose of the meeting is to help select one of the two
> alternatives contained in <draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-ingress-protection>. A
> secondary purpose is to facilitate further discussion on
> <draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-egress-protection>, and gauge WG consensus on both
> drafts.
>
> The following doodle poll will aid in selecting the exact date/time for
> this meeting: *http://doodle.com/poll/7g4st77huxv66z2d*
> <http://doodle.com/poll/7g4st77huxv66z2d>
>
> Regards,
> Pavan and Lou.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Teas mailing list
> Teas@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>
>