Re: [Teas] A clarification request for draft-ietf-teas-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp

Folks,

We might be close requiring the obvious, but I would feel more
comfortable if the draft said (in section 5.2) were a little bit
clearer.

It was changed from:

    A node initiating a Path message containing an ASSOCIATION or
    Extended ASSOCIATION Object with the Association Type set to "Single
    Sided Associated Bidirectional LSP" MUST include a REVERSE_LSP Object
    in the Path message of the LSP when it wishes to control the reverse
    LSP originating on the other endpoint node.

To:
    A node initiating a Path message containing an ASSOCIATION or
    Extended ASSOCIATION Object with the Association Type set to "Single
    Sided Associated Bidirectional LSP" MUST include a REVERSE_LSP Object
    in the Path message of the LSP.

Maybe:	

    When a node initiates setup of an LSP using a PATH message containing
    an ASSOCIATION or Extended ASSOCIATION Object, and the Association
    is Type "Single Sided Associated Bidirectional LSP", the PATH message
    MUST carry the REVERSE_LSP Object.

I won't insist on a change, what is there is probably good enough, if
what I written is clearer and you want to use, use it.

However, there were one more thing that bothered me, we appear to be
changing the rules that applies to the REVERSE_LSP Object. Before it
was "optional" now it becomes "mandatory".

The authors says that they have not deployed any implementation that
follows the old rule. This is fine, but are we sure that no one else
has? Do we need to take steps to make sure that this is not the case?

/Loa

On 2015-02-21 00:33, Lou Berger wrote:
> Loa has a fair point.  If the draft is ambiguous on this point, it
> should be clarified.
>
> Loa,
>      Can you take a look at the latest rev of the draft and let us know
> if you think is sufficiently clear?
>
> Thanks,
> Lou
>
> On 2/20/2015 10:39 AM, Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) wrote:
>> Hi Loa,
>>
>> This is for the associated bidirectional LSPs when using single sided
>> provisioning.
>> Specially, when the initiating node is inserting the ASSOCIATION Object
>> with Association Type "Single Sided Associated Bidirectional LSP" to
>> trigger creation of reverse LSP on the egress node.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Rakesh
>>
>>
>> On 2015-02-20 8:30 AM, "Loa Andersson" <loa@pi.nu> wrote:
>>
>>> Lou,
>>>
>>> There are lots of "forward LSPs" out there, what is the criteria more
>>> in detail where the REVERSE_LSP Object will be required if we choose
>>> option 1?
>>>
>>> /Loa
>>>
>>> On 2015-02-18 10:09, Lou Berger wrote:
>>>> Some options:
>>>> a) Always require a  REVERSE_LSP Object in the forward LSP
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>> Loa Andersson                        email: loa@mail01.huawei.com
>>> Senior MPLS Expert                          loa@pi.nu
>>> Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Teas mailing list
>>> Teas@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>> _______________________________________________
>> Teas mailing list
>> Teas@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>>
>
>

-- 

Loa Andersson                        email: loa@mail01.huawei.com
Senior MPLS Expert                          loa@pi.nu
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64