Subject: [mpls] Updates to draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-graceful-shutdown

From: "Zafar Ali (zali)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 11:36:32 -0400

Hi Lou, Adrian, Deborah, et al- 

We have modified the draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-graceful-shutdown to reflect
changes proposed in "draft-ietf-mpls-gmpls-lsp-reroute". This was a
comment from Lou during the last call of this draft. This was the only
outstanding comment from the LC. 

In the light of the above, can you please take a quick look at
draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-graceful-shutdown-08.txt to make sure that the
changes are correctly in synch with the
draft-ietf-mpls-gmpls-lsp-reroute work. 

Thanks for your input. 

Regards... Zafar 

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 11:56:18 -0400

Zafar,

Why does the document define new error codes (and why 4)?  Is it that 
the reroute document isn't sufficient clear on how to indicated each 
of the 4? Is it some other reason?

Thanks,
Lou

At 11:36 AM 10/29/2008, Zafar Ali (zali) wrote:

>We have modified the draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-graceful-shutdown to 
>reflect changes proposed in "draft-ietf-mpls-gmpls-lsp-reroute". 
>This was a comment from Lou during the last call of this draft. This 
>was the only outstanding comment from the LC.
>

---

From: "Zafar Ali (zali)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 12:34:47 -0400

Hi Lou-  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Lou Berger
> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 11:56 AM
> To: Zafar Ali (zali)
> Cc: Lou Berger; Adrian Farrel; [email-masked]; 
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Anca Zamfir (ancaz); Newton, Jonathan
> Subject: Re: Updates to draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-graceful-shutdown
> 
> Zafar,
> 
> Why does the document define new error codes (and why 4)?  Is 
> it that the reroute document isn't sufficient clear on how to 
> indicated each of the 4? Is it some other reason?
> 

This is because headend may be able to compute alternate route
("reroute" action) for mb4b differently, depending on the resource under
graceful shutdown, as detailed in the document. Hence one code is define
for TE node, TE link, component link of a bundled TE link, and label
resource, each. 

Thanks

Regards... Zafar 

<snip>

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 13:29:49 -0400

Zafar,

In short, you don't need new error codes to support the upstream 
identification of type of reroute being indicated (node, interface, 
component, label).

This can be determined based on the ERROR_SPEC object and included 
TLVs.  This is already covered in the reroute draft.  I thought the 
text at the end of 2.1 of the reroute draft was sufficiently clear to 
indicate how one would do this with the existing error codes.  I 
guess some examples for each of the cases will make this more apparent.

looks like there are still open issues in the draft(s)...

Lou