In favor of both drafts. Young Lee
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 12:41 PM To: pce@ietf.org Subject: Pce Digest, Vol 51, Issue 13 Send Pce mailing list submissions to pce@ietf.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to [EMAIL PROTECTED] You can reach the person managing the list at [EMAIL PROTECTED] When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Pce digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Adoption of two new Working Documents ? (Dean Cheng (dcheng)) 2. Re: Comment on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-p2mp-extensions (Quintin Zhao) 3. Re: Comment on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-p2mp-extensions (Nic Neate) 4. Re: Comment on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-p2mp-extensions (Fabien Verhaeghe) 5. Re: Comment on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-p2mp-extensions (Nic Neate) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 07:21:30 -0800 From: "Dean Cheng (dcheng)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of two new Working Documents ? To: "Jean Philippe Vasseur (jvasseur)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <pce@ietf.org> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Support both. ________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JP Vasseur (jvasseur) Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 3:05 AM To: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] Adoption of two new Working Documents ? Dear WG, Are you in favor or opposed to the adoption of the two following documents as PCE WG documents ? draft-farrel-pce-vendor-constraints-02.txt draft-kkoushik-pce-pcep-mib-02.txt Thanks. JP. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/pce/attachments/20081120/87420629/attachment- 0001.htm> ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 11:16:21 -0500 From: Quintin Zhao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Pce] Comment on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-p2mp-extensions To: 'Adrian Farrel' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 'Nic Neate' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], 'Mohamad CHAITOU' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, pce@ietf.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Nic and Adrian, Thanks for your suggestions! By using the existing SVEC functionality, PCC can request the secondary P2MP LSP path computation to protect the whole P2MP path tree by specifying the S/N/L bit in the SVEC object. If we understand the new requirements you suggested for S2L sub-path diversity, you want the PCC to be able to ask the PCE to compute secondary P2MP path tree with partial path diversity for certain leaves or certain S2L sub-path. We will address these new requirements in our next version of the draft. Quintin -----Original Message----- From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 3:49 PM To: Nic Neate; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; pce@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Pce] Comment on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-p2mp-extensions Ah, that is an interesting and valid point, Nic. And I think one might also consider "directional diversity" for your ring example. A ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nic Neate" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <pce@ietf.org>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 8:28 PM Subject: [Pce] Comment on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-p2mp-extensions Hi, I have a suggestion for a small extension to the PCEP P2MP draft. I believe the base PCEP specification currently has three options for calculating diverse protection paths: link diverse, node diverse and SRLG diverse (draft-ietf-pce-pcep section 7.13.2). In P2MP, S2L sub-path diverse is another important case. I think it would be good to allow the PCC to request computation of S2L sub-path diverse protection paths. This is useful when doing 1+1 protection in a ring topology, for example. Nic ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:33:33 +0000 From: Nic Neate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Pce] Comment on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-p2mp-extensions To: Quintin Zhao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aria - Adrian Farrel Personal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 'Mohamad CHAITOU' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hi Quintin, I don't think "partial path diversity for certain leaves" is quite the point I was suggesting. The idea of S2L sub-path diversity is that, when you're doing 1+1 protection, you don't need complete tree diversity. It is sufficient just to ensure that, for any given leaf, the S2L sub-paths to that leaf in the two trees are diverse. Then, following some network failure, traffic will still be delivered to all leaves on at least one of the two trees. Two P2MP LSPs going in opposite ways around a ring is the easiest way to picture this. Nic -----Original Message----- From: Quintin Zhao [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 20 November 2008 16:16 To: Aria - Adrian Farrel Personal; Nic Neate Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; pce@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Mohamad CHAITOU'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Pce] Comment on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-p2mp-extensions Nic and Adrian, Thanks for your suggestions! By using the existing SVEC functionality, PCC can request the secondary P2MP LSP path computation to protect the whole P2MP path tree by specifying the S/N/L bit in the SVEC object. If we understand the new requirements you suggested for S2L sub-path diversity, you want the PCC to be able to ask the PCE to compute secondary P2MP path tree with partial path diversity for certain leaves or certain S2L sub-path. We will address these new requirements in our next version of the draft. Quintin -----Original Message----- From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 3:49 PM To: Nic Neate; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; pce@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Pce] Comment on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-p2mp-extensions Ah, that is an interesting and valid point, Nic. And I think one might also consider "directional diversity" for your ring example. A ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nic Neate" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <pce@ietf.org>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 8:28 PM Subject: [Pce] Comment on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-p2mp-extensions Hi, I have a suggestion for a small extension to the PCEP P2MP draft. I believe the base PCEP specification currently has three options for calculating diverse protection paths: link diverse, node diverse and SRLG diverse (draft-ietf-pce-pcep section 7.13.2). In P2MP, S2L sub-path diverse is another important case. I think it would be good to allow the PCC to request computation of S2L sub-path diverse protection paths. This is useful when doing 1+1 protection in a ring topology, for example. Nic ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:59:37 +0100 From: "Fabien Verhaeghe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Pce] Comment on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-p2mp-extensions To: "'Nic Neate'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: pce@ietf.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Hi Nic, Just to be sure we understand, can you please confirm that the following definition corresponds to what you name ?S2L sub-path diversity?: For each leaf Ln the path from S to Ln in the primary P2MP LSP is Link (or node or SRLG) diverse with the S to Ln path in the secondary P2MP LSP. If this is correct I also think this is a good suggestion that would be easily fulfilled by defining a new bit in the SVEC object in next draft version. BR Fabien _____ De : Nic Neate [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Envoy? : mercredi 19 novembre 2008 21:29 ? : [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc : [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; pce@ietf.org Objet : Comment on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-p2mp-extensions Hi, I have a suggestion for a small extension to the PCEP P2MP draft. I believe the base PCEP specification currently has three options for calculating diverse protection paths: link diverse, node diverse and SRLG diverse (draft-ietf-pce-pcep section 7.13.2). In P2MP, S2L sub-path diverse is another important case. I think it would be good to allow the PCC to request computation of S2L sub-path diverse protection paths. This is useful when doing 1+1 protection in a ring topology, for example. Nic -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/pce/attachments/20081120/e04e83bb/attachment- 0001.htm> ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 18:41:09 +0000 From: Nic Neate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Pce] Comment on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-p2mp-extensions To: Fabien Verhaeghe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Exactly. I agree that a new bit in the SVEC object is the way to do this. Thanks, Nic ________________________________ From: Fabien Verhaeghe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 20 November 2008 17:00 To: Nic Neate; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; pce@ietf.org Subject: RE: Comment on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-p2mp-extensions Hi Nic, Just to be sure we understand, can you please confirm that the following definition corresponds to what you name "S2L sub-path diversity": For each leaf Ln the path from S to Ln in the primary P2MP LSP is Link (or node or SRLG) diverse with the S to Ln path in the secondary P2MP LSP. If this is correct I also think this is a good suggestion that would be easily fulfilled by defining a new bit in the SVEC object in next draft version. BR Fabien ________________________________ De : Nic Neate [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Envoy? : mercredi 19 novembre 2008 21:29 ? : [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc : [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; pce@ietf.org Objet : Comment on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-p2mp-extensions Hi, I have a suggestion for a small extension to the PCEP P2MP draft. I believe the base PCEP specification currently has three options for calculating diverse protection paths: link diverse, node diverse and SRLG diverse (draft-ietf-pce-pcep section 7.13.2). In P2MP, S2L sub-path diverse is another important case. I think it would be good to allow the PCC to request computation of S2L sub-path diverse protection paths. This is useful when doing 1+1 protection in a ring topology, for example. Nic -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/pce/attachments/20081120/267cb277/attachment. htm> ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce End of Pce Digest, Vol 51, Issue 13 *********************************** _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
