IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vishnupavan@gmail.com> Tue, 15 November 2016 21:32 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 513561294E1 for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 13:32:24 -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 CFee4fA8jz7h for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 13:32:22 -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 5B1781294D7 for <teas@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 13:32:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ua0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id 51so98548460uai.1 for <teas@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 13:32:22 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=tDIIKavzxg4jHW6eK3zWmLp9gRYwhq5EkOnMKdUg3RM=; b=k4ViRCaMinB/kmppxE1LpKt9O0j12QrH/OvdjPAym/Ce/6/v6niV+b/4ZRdL5b2cvl WdilR392DMudxHfISGHkMmqVQYqcfzGf/l+FvhfuawZzzWOXnKXrDOpmXUTdNpLzWYhI NCKg9A8a5huaGhgtcUkva8hi1HinyHUNRIBwZz4DCRkVjRjp+zmMG7C8kmPHe1gRq+R0 ry/8lH4dVpba2TjVmqhPM+nJEFaO+QCVGOX1ibSbStRHt3Ijb1lmKZx4CcIJGDMRLBV2 Ym33JG5ARzb7NZS/t4UidgK+SLzeZ9/zmPITUThrDZKsRPSAEqPfaau8i14JW3ydkIUH Cj0Q==
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:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=tDIIKavzxg4jHW6eK3zWmLp9gRYwhq5EkOnMKdUg3RM=; b=dTfsoYJIsa4N/ofRMscYqouTFx5qwFsj1SBbILst/qlFW7ZcO7H39GoeOEW8jQ1LdD Zvk3+Y7HtR6MuOsLQzNGyJtFMnxYTSxI+5sKYDd46yxmqJenBSwmBceNmAtpsckENOm2 xk7xZjIXJI4iAcqipToEM2xkpYF8lYeKHbPQf5NmuIjXvjkTuopt4YxLLBceqwej74Lj 9LOW6f/9NV4uqm549yD7M9yDwM9VlQov1ds/CBAL72Xj15JunMbTyi5DeSyzbmfAriwY rvIsanrTqst0u+E4/XXdisAwinygSatfIjZQ2SXjwoe0Td51VRE0r9C1yfwEG6dK/ILj wsLg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvf8imXYHVWhOfsrfdB0wsgwW61bQtcAwxHnpXp2pm5uN8aPcDxMcwVVHhFp9B47k/pNDPv7Uiw5jlbdTg==
X-Received: by 10.176.81.245 with SMTP id h50mr12062980uaa.1.1479245541404; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 13:32:21 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.31.63.130 with HTTP; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 13:32:20 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAMZsk6cQRvCNC1ob3Y3TD5aXMsOpkbVT9-Qi9B2=LD84GmS5oQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+YzgTvPTRAxMK5EGCF1Y2nsSZZhyW_Rq1gQPvieMdCB70c04w@mail.gmail.com> <CAMZsk6cQRvCNC1ob3Y3TD5aXMsOpkbVT9-Qi9B2=LD84GmS5oQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vishnupavan@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 16:32:20 -0500
Message-ID: <CA+YzgTu=GQciOt79DqaN3P=krfDmsB3fYRthqtLknSF29E3D4w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c19205007f8fa05415db1c6"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/sodujJ2rvBD8BOJnvtFqGI33K7Y>
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, 15 Nov 2016 21:32:24 -0000

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