IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Fri, 20 February 2015 16:34 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
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 21DE61A6EF0 for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 08:34:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.667
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.667 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 hlyPHzB5Fe22 for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 08:34:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gproxy4-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy4-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [69.89.23.142]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 4E84D1A8831 for <teas@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 08:34:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 28765 invoked by uid 0); 20 Feb 2015 16:34:27 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO CMOut01) (10.0.90.82) by gproxy4.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 20 Feb 2015 16:34:27 -0000
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by CMOut01 with id ugZT1p0032SSUrH01gZWQB; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 09:33:33 -0700
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=e6KVF8Z/ c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=Vhvw94NMJWsA:10 a=N659UExz7-8A:10 a=wU2YTnxGAAAA:8 a=cNaOj0WVAAAA:8 a=-NfooI8aBGcA:10 a=uEJ9t1CZtbIA:10 a=0HtSIViG9nkA:10 a=i0EeH86SAAAA:8 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=TBBvHWzqI4G4nezffRgA:9 a=pILNOxqGKmIA:10
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:CC:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=ZiHz/ntCJdvm4K88yroatmeNwwdPN6vhfaliysmUmUw=; b=L/2mMZ2t91OmbZGd2/JrvRIckaaeRdt0zwIjkErBInMnraMjvrsqjDunGc7AlQwwQ49HOQDS/P8kLzpjrgb2FTgR6phOYeXcDkw+O5XeqGKK+H74KzynMZhvx0r3c2Y1;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:57347 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1YOqW8-00012I-53; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 09:33:28 -0700
Message-ID: <54E761D0.5010005@labn.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 11:33:20 -0500
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)" <rgandhi@cisco.com>, Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
References: <D10CBD7B.504F7%rgandhi@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D10CBD7B.504F7%rgandhi@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
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}
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/quqREYFYGz_yQzQSsPc3h09tjU0>
Cc: "teas@ietf.org" <teas@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Teas] A clarification request for draft-ietf-teas-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 16:34:35 -0000

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
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email