OSPF WG for the OSPF extensions seems very reasonable to me ;-) I still hope that the OSPF portions of draft-wang-ccamp-latency-te-metric can be combined with draft-giacalone-ospf-te-express-path given that both drafts state that they are addressing essentially the same high-level problem.
Lou On 6/22/2011 8:40 AM, Acee Lindem wrote: > Hi John, > As it stands, the draft contains mainly OSPF TE encodings and considerations. > Hence, my inclination would be to keep it in the OSPF WG. However, I'm > willing to listen to other proposals. > > Thanks, > Acee > On Jun 21, 2011, at 11:10 PM, John E Drake wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I am a bit confused. I thought the proper home for this work would either >> be the rtg wg or the mpls wg. I thought it was presented to the OSPF wg for >> information only. >> >> Thanks, >> >> John >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf >>> Of Alia Atlas >>> Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 6:45 PM >>> To: Acee Lindem >>> Cc: Spencer Giacalone; CCAMP; OSPF WG List >>> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] [OSPF] draft-giacalone-ospf-te-express-path-01 >>> >>> Hi Acee, >>> >>> I do agree that we should explicitly document this in the draft & work >>> on better names for the sub-TLVs that might be confused. >>> I also agree that we need to give the decision explicit consideration; >>> to give this the exposure necessary and consideration for >>> applications was why we had this draft discussed in rtgwg as well as >>> ospf. >>> >>> In addition to the obvious uses for RSVP-TE, another potential >>> application is the idea of a path-weighted ECMP, where traffic is >>> split to the different next-hops based upon the total path bandwidths >>> out those next-hops. This is a pure IP application (LDP follows >>> of course) and I'd prefer not to lose track of those options when >>> considering the RSVP-TE applications. >>> >>> Alia >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 9:06 PM, Acee Lindem <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> Hi Alia, >>>> I guess I agree with Lou - heretofore, we've done TE requirements in >>> the MPLS/CCAMP WGs and the TE encodings in the IGP WGs. I think we >>> should give the decision explicit consideration before we branch off >>> and do TE for application X independently. Additionally, if we do >>> decide to split this off independently, an E-mail to the list saying >>> there is no overlap is not sufficient to move forward. At a minimum, I >>> believe we need to: >>>> >>>> 1. Explicitly document this alternate applicability and >>> relationship to existing TE in the draft. >>>> 2. Determine whether any sub-TLVs can be shared (my opinion was >>> consistent with yours that there are not due to differences in >>> requirements and measurement). >>>> 3. Assure the sub-TLVs are appropriately named to avoid confusion >>> between the latency applications. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Acee >>>> On Jun 21, 2011, at 2:08 PM, Alia Atlas wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Acee, >>>>> >>>>> John Drake and I did take a look at the draft mentioned in CCAMP. >>> It >>>>> had a large number of requirements and extensions to >>>>> a number of different protocols. There is one sub-TLV (latency) >>> that >>>>> appears the same - but the expectations >>>>> as to averaging vs. instantaneous were different. >>>>> >>>>> The OSPF TE Express Path work is fairly self-contained and doesn't >>>>> specify in exact detail how the information >>>>> for the sub-TLVs is measured or obtained. I think it could be used >>>>> for multiple purposes. >>>>> >>>>> Alia >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Acee Lindem >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> Hi Spencer (CCAMP copied as well), >>>>>> >>>>>> Here is a link for everyone's convenience: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-giacalone-ospf-te-express-path-01.txt >>>>>> >>>>>> At IETF 80, there were questions about overlap with other CCAMP >>> drafts containing interface delay metrics and proposals for new TE sub- >>> TLVs. Have you or your co-authors, done looked at how your draft is >>> positioned versus these other drafts? While these applications have >>> differing goals, the CCAMP/OSPF chairs requested that this analysis be >>> done. >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-wang-ccamp-latency-te-metric-03.txt >>>>>> >>>>>> We would like to avoid having exactly the same information >>> advertised in two different link Sub-TLVs. I'd hope we could agree on >>> common units. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Acee >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jun 20, 2011, at 4:30 PM, Spencer Giacalone wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hello everyone, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As you may have noticed, another version of the OSPF TE Express >>> Path >>>>>>> draft has been posted. We made a number of changes based on >>> feedback >>>>>>> from IETF 80. We invite your comments and suggestions. The main >>>>>>> changes include: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -We have consolidated some sub-TLVs for efficiency. There are no >>>>>>> longer nominal and anomalous sub-TLVs for delay and loss. The >>>>>>> functionality for signaling steady state verses abnormal >>> performance >>>>>>> for these parameters have been moved into two sub-TLVs (where we >>> used >>>>>>> to have four). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -In order to advertise both normal and abnormal network >>> performance >>>>>>> state in consolidated sub-TLVs, a bit, called the anomalous (A) >>> but >>>>>>> has been added to certain sub-TLVs. The A bit is set when the >>> measured >>>>>>> value of a parameter exceeds a configured maximum threshold. The A >>> bit >>>>>>> is cleared when the measured value falls below its configured >>> reuse >>>>>>> threshold. If the A bit is clear, the sub-TLV represents steady >>> state >>>>>>> link performance. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -We changed the encodings of certain variables from floating point >>> to >>>>>>> fixed point. This change permits the addition of the A bit (when >>>>>>> necessary), it allows bit-space reservations to be made, and it >>>>>>> permits a common TLV format across the bulk of the TLVs in the >>> draft. >>>>>>> In addition, the new encodings address concerns about granularity >>> and >>>>>>> interoperability. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -We added sub-TLVs for Residual Bandwidth and Available Bandwidth. >>>>>>> Residual bandwidth is defined as the Maximum Bandwidth [RFC3630] >>> minus >>>>>>> the bandwidth currently allocated to RSVP-TE LSPs. Available >>> bandwidth >>>>>>> is defined to be residual bandwidth minus the measured bandwidth >>> used >>>>>>> for the actual forwarding of non-RSVP-TE LSP packets. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -Various other modifications were made across the draft. These >>>>>>> include, but are not limited to, the abstract, the introduction, >>> the >>>>>>> thresholding specifications, and a number of field descriptions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -Last, but certainly not least, Stefano Providi has joined the >>> draft >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We look forward to hearing your comments and concerns. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Spencer, Alia, Dave, John, Stefano >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> OSPF mailing list >>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> OSPF mailing list >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> CCAMP mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp > > _______________________________________________ > OSPF mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf > > > > _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
