Robert,
On 15/04/2019 11:21 , Robert Raszuk wrote:
Peter,
IMO what Olivier has indicated is a practical and operational aspect.
The theoretical aspects of protocol operation is what this document is
extending. Those are two different things :) And this is not the first
time where IETF is manufacturing specs without any serious input from
folks who actually need to use it. The co-authors of this very draft
indicates it quite clearly - all vendors !
let me assure you that this work has been triggered by the real problems
we have experienced in the field. Being it a "theoretical aspects of
protocol operation" we would not have spent our effort on it.
It would be very operationally complex and completely bizarre to run N
different TE applications concurrently in any production network. The
it is a reality already. RSVP TE and SR TE are being deployed in
parallel as networks are migrating towards SR.
fact that you could or can does not make it immediately a good idea.
Perhaps great exercise for the lab though.
Even with one such TE mechanism there is a lot of things to manage and
that is why very few networks run full 100% TE. Further more as you know
TE reservations are all in control plane so the moment you forward any
significant amount of non TE traffic (unicast or multicast) your entire
TE magic is over.
your view is (RSVP) TE focused. There are other apps that have nothing
to do with TE and they need to use link attributes - LFA, flex-ago, etc.
And bandwidth is not the only link attribute.
Last I was hoping someone will answer how for a given link of RTT 20 ms
- you could send different value per each application ? Or do you mean
that on any given link mpls RTT != IPv4 RTT != IPv6 RTT ?
could very well be the case. Depends on what you measure.
thanks,
Peter
Kind regards,
R.
On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 10:49 AM Peter Psenak <ppse...@cisco.com
<mailto:ppse...@cisco.com>> wrote:
Hi Olivier,
On 12/04/2019 16:26 , olivier.dug...@orange.com
<mailto:olivier.dug...@orange.com> wrote:
> Hello Peter,
>
>
> Le 12/04/2019 à 15:27, Peter Psenak a écrit :
>> Hi Oliver,
>>
>> There are two major purposes served by the drafts:
>>
>> 1)Support of incongruent topologies for different applications
> Don't understand. What do you mean ?
RFC3630 allows the traffic engineering topology to be incongruent with
the regular routing topology. This means that the RSVP TE topology can
only be a subset of the regular routing topology. If there is a need to
advertise some link attribute for the purpose of the other application,
the link would become part of the RSVP TE topology, something that may
not be desired.
>>
>> 2)Advertisement of application specific values even on links that
are in
>> use by multiple applications
> Hum. Do you think it makes sense to announce different TE metric
for the
> same link for different applications ? e.g. 10 ms delay for
RSVP-TE, 20
> ms for SR, 15 ms for LFA and 5 ms for Flex -Algo ? The link has a fix
> delay propagation whatever the application.
>
> If the goal is to dedicated link per application, Resource Class/Color
> attribute could be used. If you would advertised different metric per
> CoS, then you need to dedicated metric per CoS like the unreserved
> bandwidth.
The goal is the allow the link to be used by multiple applications, but
be advertised with application specific attributes.
>>
>> These issues are clearly articulated in the Introductions of both
>> drafts. LSR WG acknowledged them a while back and decided to address
>> them.
>>
>> Issue #1 has already had a significant impact on early deployments of
>> SRTE in networks where there is partial deployment of SR in the
presence
>> of RSVP-TE.
> Can you point me a concrete and detail example of the problem ? With a
> PCE, there is no problem to manage both RSVP-TE and SR-TE in the same
> network. And again, as already mention, if the problem come from
> bandwidth reservation, the draft will not solve the issue.
there is no way to advertise the link for the purpose of the SR-TE,
without it becoming the part of the RSVP-TE using existing
advertisements. Similarly applicable in the context of any other
application.
>>
>> Issue #2 will be seen in deployments where Flex-Algo and SRTE (or
>> RSVP-TE) are also present. Early implementers of Flex-Algo can
attest to
>> this.
> Again, I don't see the problem. Can you explain in detail ? I already
> implement SR in OSPF, starting playing with TE, and there is no
problem
> to get TE information from OSPF to tune some Segment Path. If it is an
> implementation issue, it is not a new RFC that will solve the problem.
we are not trying to solve the implementation issue. We are solving the
protocol issue. Both protocols have defined many link attributes for
the
purpose of the RSVP-TE. Some of these are usable outside of the RSVP TE
and we are extending the protocols to support that.
Please read the discussion on the mailing list that happened prior to
the WG adoption of these drafts.
>>
>> It is simply not possible to address these issues with the existing
>> single set of application independent advertisements.
> Why ? Again, explain in detail. I don't see a real use case that could
> not be address with standard TE attributes.
please see above.
thanks,
Peter
>>
>> The solutions we provide in both drafts allow to share the link
>> attributes between application as well as keep them separate if
that is
>> what is required.
>>
>> thanks,
>> Peter
>
> Regards
>
> Olivier
>
>>
>> On 11/04/2019 19:43 , olivier.dug...@orange.com
<mailto:olivier.dug...@orange.com> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'm not in favour of this draft.
>>>
>>> As already mention, I don't see the interest to duplicate TE
attributes
>>> in new Extended Link Opaque LSA. For me, it is only a matter of
>>> implementation to look at various place in the OSPF TE Database
to take
>>> Traffic Engineering information.
>>>
>>> From an operator perspective, it is already hard to manage TE
attribute
>>> and I'm pretty sure that we could not ask network management team to
>>> maintain 2 systems for certainly a long period of time as many TE
>>> attributes remains in the standard Opaque LSA Traffic Engineering.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Olivier
>>>
>>>
>>> Le 11/04/2019 à 18:11, Acee Lindem (acee) a écrit :
>>>>
>>>> LSR Working Group,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This begins a two week WG last call for the subject document.
Please
>>>> enter your support or objection to the document before 12:00 AM
(EDT)
>>>> on Friday, April 27^th , 2019.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Acee
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Lsr mailing list
>>>> Lsr@ietf.org <mailto:Lsr@ietf.org>
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>>>
>>>
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
>>> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
>>> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous
>>> avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
>>> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les
>>> messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
>>> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere,
>>> deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>>>
>>> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or
>>> privileged information that may be protected by law;
>>> they should not be distributed, used or copied without
authorisation.
>>> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender
>>> and delete this message and its attachments.
>>> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that
have
>>> been modified, changed or falsified.
>>> Thank you.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous
avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les
messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere,
deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or
privileged information that may be protected by law;
> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender
and delete this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that
have been modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
>
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org <mailto:Lsr@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
