Re: Moving right along ... generalized-signaling-06

[Ben Mack-Crane <Ben.Mack-Crane@tellabs.com>]

What does it mean for something to be "a policy decision?"

I take this to mean that it must be configured via a management
interface.  Anything signaling can do can also be done via
management.  The goal is to signal all the necessary
information so that an LSP can be setup to provide the desired
service in an interoperable way.  Leaving some aspects to "policy"
simply means that there is no guarantee that these aspects
will be interoperable (or even easy to configure in a uniform way).

Regards,
Ben



John Drake wrote:
> 
> As I understand it, discussion is closed.  But to answer your questions:
> 
> 1) No, it's a policy decision at the intermediate node.
> 
> 2) No, revertive behavior is a policy decision at the LSP endpoints
> 
> 3) No, path protection is a policy decision at the LSP endpoints
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Zhi-Wei Lin [mailto:zwlin@lucent.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 8:37 AM
> To: John Drake
> Cc: Ben Mack-Crane; Lou Berger; Kireeti Kompella; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Moving right along ... generalized-signaling-06
> 
> Hi,
> 
> To further the discussion, would it be possible to add a new flag for
> purpose of identifying whether or not a connection (secondary
> connection) can support extra traffic. A 1:1 connection should be able
> to support extra traffic (if secondary is not used) while a 1+1 would
> not support extra traffic.
> 
> Also, we may want to add a flag for whether or not a protection is
> revertive.
> 
> Also, current "link flags" is assumed to provide link protection. Maybe
> we can add a new flag for either "link" or "path" protection.
> 
> So the total is three new flags using 3 bits, out of the current 25
> reserved bits.
> 
> What do you think?
> Zhi
> 
> John Drake wrote:
> 
> > Snipped
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ben Mack-Crane [mailto:Ben.Mack-Crane@tellabs.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 6:38 AM
> > To: Lou Berger
> > Cc: Kireeti Kompella; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: Moving right along ... generalized-signaling-06
> >
> >
> >
> >>>7) In Protection Information it states "The resources allocated for a
> >>>   secondary LSP MAY be used by other LSPs until the primary LSP fails
> >>>   over to the secondary LSP."  This may not always be the case.  An
> >>>   explicit flag indicating whether or not extra traffic may use the
> >>>   secondary path resources is needed.
> >>>
> >>??? This is the purpose of this bit.
> >>
> >
> > This is not clear from the definition.  The bit is defined as indicating
> > the LSP is a secondary (or protecting) LSP and in 1+1 protection the
> > secondary LSP may not be used for extra traffic.
> >
> > Perhaps the problem here is that protection features are being defined
> > before the protection framework and requirements are done.  Is this
> > presupposing some particular outcome of the recovery work in CAMP?
> >
> > JD:  I think the definition of the bit is fine.  For both 1+1 and 1:1
> > protection, there would be a pair of Primary LSPs between the source
> > and destination, rather than a Primary and a Secondary.
> >
> >