[Tsvwg] RE: Comments on draft-lefaucheur-rsvp-dste-01
"Francois Le Faucheur \(flefauch\)" <flefauch@cisco.com> Tue, 08 March 2005 22:39 UTC
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA27175; Tue, 8 Mar 2005 17:39:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1D8nOZ-0002zq-LK; Tue, 08 Mar 2005 17:41:44 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1D8nLI-0000WM-NW; Tue, 08 Mar 2005 17:38:20 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1D8nLG-0000WH-W9 for tsvwg@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2005 17:38:19 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA27123 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Mar 2005 17:38:16 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com ([144.254.224.140]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1D8nNj-0002yA-5q for tsvwg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2005 17:40:52 -0500
Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com (144.254.224.150) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 08 Mar 2005 23:58:56 +0100
X-BrightmailFiltered: true
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Received: from xbh-ams-332.emea.cisco.com (xbh-ams-332.cisco.com [144.254.231.87]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j28MbcmI026331; Tue, 8 Mar 2005 23:38:04 +0100 (MET)
Received: from xmb-ams-333.cisco.com ([144.254.231.78]) by xbh-ams-332.emea.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0); Tue, 8 Mar 2005 23:38:03 +0100
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 23:37:54 +0100
Message-ID: <A05118C6DF9320488C77F3D5459B17B7764E30@xmb-ams-333.emea.cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: Comments on draft-lefaucheur-rsvp-dste-01
Thread-Index: AcUjWtEND4DKcdoZRvq0u/wgov7bzwA01KEg
From: "Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch)" <flefauch@cisco.com>
To: Rurick Kellermann <rurick@nortel.com>, tsvwg@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Mar 2005 22:38:03.0247 (UTC) FILETIME=[7D32C7F0:01C5242F]
X-Spam-Score: 0.6 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 48472a944c87678fcfe8db15ffecdfff
Subject: [Tsvwg] RE: Comments on draft-lefaucheur-rsvp-dste-01
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0162674573=="
Sender: tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.6 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 501044f827b673024f6a4cb1d46e67d2
Hi Rurick, Thanks for your comments. See below: ________________________________ From: Rurick Kellermann [mailto:rurick@nortel.com] Sent: lundi 7 mars 2005 22:15 To: Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch) Subject: Comments on draft-lefaucheur-rsvp-dste-01 Hi Francois, First things first, I think the draft is very concise in what it intends to describe. Given the nature of its contents, this is an accomplishment in itself. Kudos to the authors. Two comments - 1- General: IMO the introduction section would be better off by having a separate sub-section dedicated to the differences with RSVP-TUN (RFC2746). [FLF:] So there is a separate paragraph about RSVP-TUN. You are just suggesting this should be made a subsection instead? 2- Section 3.2 - Receipt of E2E path message First time the E2E path message is mentioned in the draft. [FLF:] We reused the "E2E" (aka end-to-end) terminology from RFC3175, but I guess we haven't made that clear nor re-included a proper definition. We can add that. In simple terms, E2E referes to reservations (i) whose sender is upstream of the Aggregator , (ii) whose destination is downstream of the Deaggregtor and (iii) who are to be aggregated. houldn't it be described that several hosts have previously sent RESV messages to the sender host(s) and as a result the de-aggregator is bundling the individual "PATHS" messages into an E2E path message? Also, it might be useful to add an explanation that the standard RSVP (and TE) procedure applies to the individual RESV messages (i.e. no aggregation). As a separate comment,did you guys consider the case where there might be several aggregators that could benefit of a hierarchical-type of aggregation in itself? (i.e. E2E Path1, E2EPath2 E2EPath3, etc., as long as they have the same destination). Maybe is adding un-necessary complexity to the protocol and it's easier to deal with individual E2E paths... [FLF:] This is actually already allowed because: - the TE tunnels themselves can be suject to aggregation (as per "LSP Hiererachy"). - The E2E reservations aggregated over TE tunnels can be pre-aggregated reservations (ie they can be RFC3175 type of reservations). This is discussed in section 5. Cheers Francois Rurick K.
_______________________________________________ tsvwg mailing list tsvwg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg
- [Tsvwg] RE: Comments on draft-lefaucheur-rsvp-dst… Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch)