[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Agenda updated
Nic,
See below.
At 08:06 AM 11/18/2008, Nic Neate wrote:
Hi Lou,
Following up on our conversation in CCAMP.
I think you agreed that the "Resource Sharing" association type 2 is
not relevant to this discussion.
You also said that the intent of the statement from 3.2.1
"processing and identification occur with respect to segment
recovery LSPs" is to indicate that the procedures defined in RFC
4872 for setting the association ID to an LSP ID are not
used. Instead, a unique identifier should be chosen by the
association source (as suggested in our draft).
I find this quite a stretch, and think a clarification would improve
the chances of interoperability.
As you know, in there's always opportunity for more detailed
discussion in any document and that there will always be someone who
doesn't understand the more detailed explanation. It's up to the
author's and the WG to agree that a draft is sufficient. At the time
the document was written, we did.
I accept that more language could be helpful to those new to segment
recovery. As I suggested to you, I believe the proper way to address
this (and to ask for and to get formal clarification) is to open an Errata.
I'm also concerned with the reuse of association type 1 with
different semantics in segment recovery to those defined for
end-to-end recovery.
How are the semantics different?
Per RFC4872:
16.1. Format
The IPv4 ASSOCIATION object (Class-Num of the form 11bbbbbb with
value = 199, C-Type = 1) has the format:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Length | Class-Num(199)| C-Type (1) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Association Type | Association ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 Association Source |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Association Type: 16 bits
Indicates the type of association being identified. Note that
this value is considered when determining association. The
following are values defined in this document.
Value Type
----- ----
0 Reserved
1 Recovery (R)
Association ID: 16 bits
A value assigned by the LSP head-end. When combined with the
Association Type and Association Source, this value uniquely
identifies an association.
Association Source: 4 or 16 bytes
An IPv4 or IPv6 address, respectively, that is associated to
the node that originated the association.
And RFC4873 says:
3.2.1. Recovery Type Processing
Recovery type processing procedures are the same as those defined in
[RFC4872], but processing and identification occur with respect to
segment recovery LSPs. Note that this means that multiple
ASSOCIATION objects of type recovery may be present on an LSP.
Consider the case where a segment recovery LSP is itself end-to-end
protected. Then there will be two type 1 association objects, and
the merge node must process each differently.
yes, as is explicity stated in the RFC.
How does the implementation you mentioned decide which is which?
What protocol question are you asking here?
If you want to see code, most folks don't make that available or
charge a fee (I know of some sources of such code, and can provide
this info offline if you'd like).
You also dismissed the other issues raised in
draft-rhodes-rsvp-recovery-signaling relating to protection of
recovery LSPs and overlaping protection.
Per RFC4873:
Segment protection or restoration is signaled using a working LSP and
one or more segment recovery LSPs. Each segment recovery LSP is
signaled as an independent LSP. Specifically, the Sender_Template
object uses the IP address of the node originating the recovery path,
e.g., node C in the topology shown above, and the Session object
contains the IP address of the node terminating the recovery path,
e.g., node E shown above. There is no specific requirement on LSP ID
value, Tunnel ID, and Extended Tunnel ID. Values for these fields
are selected normally, including consideration for the make-before-
break concept (as described in [RFC3209]). Intermediate nodes follow
standard signaling procedures when processing segment recovery LSPs.
A segment recovery LSP may be protected itself using segment or end-
to-end protection/restoration. Note, in PSC environments, it may be
desirable to construct the Sender_Template and Session objects per
[RFC4090].
When [RFC4090] isn't being used, the association between segment
recovery LSPs with other LSPs is indicated using the ASSOCIATION
object defined in [RFC4872]. The ASSOCIATION object is used to
associate recovery LSPs with the LSP they are protecting.
Please could you respond on the specific technical points raised in the draft?
I suggest bringing points you'd like to discuss to the
list. Although, I think resolution of the basic understanding of
segment recovery is needed to move the discussion further.
Again, I suggest filing the errata...
Lou
I'd be glad to meet up and discuss this in person while we're in Minneapolis.
Thanks,
Nic
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On
Behalf Of labn - Lou Berger
Sent: 16 November 2008 22:46
To: Nic Neate
Cc: labn - Lou Berger; IBryskin@advaoptical.com; Aria - Adrian
Farrel Personal; ccamp@ops.ietf.org; ALU - Dimitri Papadimitriou
Subject: RE: Agenda updated
I agree with Dimitri.
also, note:
3.2.1. Recovery Type Processing
Recovery type processing procedures are the same as those defined in
[RFC4872], but processing and identification occur with respect to
segment recovery LSPs.
Lou
At 05:36 PM 11/16/2008, PAPADIMITRIOU Dimitri wrote:
>nick,
>
>you mention:
>
>"3.1 Association between LSPs in different sessions
>
> Segment recovery protecting LSPs may have a different endpoint
> address from the corresponding protected LSP. The protected and
> protecting LSPs are therefore in different Sessions. The Association
> object of type 1 (recovery) is not effective in this case, as the
> Association ID can only associate to an LSP ID within the same
> Session."
>
>but segment recovery makes use of:
>
>"9.1. New Association Type Assignment
>
>
> IANA has made the following assignment to the "Association Types"
> Registry (see [RFC4872]) in the "ASSOCIATION (object)" section of the
> "RSVP PARAMETERS" registry located at
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-parameters.
>
> Value Type
> ----- ----
> 2 Resource Sharing (R) [RFC4873]"
>
>and states:
>
>"Consider the following topology:
>
> A---B---C---D---E---F
> \ /
> G---I
>
> In this topology, end-to-end protection and recovery is not possible
> for an LSP going between node A and node F, but it is possible to
> protect/recover a portion of the LSP. Specifically, if the LSP uses
> a working path of [A,B,C,D,E,F], then a protection or restoration LSP
> can be established along the path [C,G,I,E]."
>
>[...]
>
>"Segment protection or restoration is signaled using a working LSP and
> one or more segment recovery LSPs. Each segment recovery LSP is
> signaled as an independent LSP. Specifically, the Sender_Template
> object uses the IP address of the node originating the recovery path,
> e.g., node C in the topology shown above, and the Session object
> contains the IP address of the node terminating the recovery path,
> e.g., node E shown above. There is no specific requirement on LSP ID
> value, Tunnel ID, and Extended Tunnel ID."
>
>so where is the issue ?
>
>-d.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Nic Neate [mailto:Nic.Neate@dataconnection.com]
> > Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 4:46 PM
> > To: labn - Lou Berger; IBryskin@advaoptical.com; PAPADIMITRIOU
> > Dimitri; Aria - Adrian Farrel Personal
> > Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> > Subject: FW: Agenda updated
> >
> > RFC 4873 authors,
> >
> > Just wanted to flag that I'm presenting a problem in segment
> > recovery signaling on Monday, together with a suggested solution.
> >
> > Problem statement:
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rhodes-rsvp-recovery-signaling-00.
> > Suggested fix:
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rhodes-ccamp-rsvp-recovery-fix-00.
> >
> >
> > Nic
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> > [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Aria - Adrian Farrel
> > Personal
> > Sent: 07 November 2008 19:29
> > To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> > Subject: Agenda updated
> >
> > I have made some updates.
> >
> > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08nov/agenda/ccamp.htm
> >
> > Please shout if there further issues.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Adrian
> >
> >