A Link-Type sub-TLV to Convey the Number of Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths Signalled with Zero Reserved Bandwidth across a Link
RFC 5330
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2017-05-16
|
12 | (System) | Changed document authors from "Kenji Kumaki, Alberto Bonda" to "Kenji Kumaki, Alberto Bonda, JP Vasseur, Matthew Meyer" |
|
2015-10-14
|
12 | (System) | Notify list changed from mpls-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-number-0-bw-te-lsps@ietf.org to (None) |
|
2012-08-22
|
12 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Pasi Eronen |
|
2012-08-22
|
12 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Tim Polk |
|
2008-10-22
|
12 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Amy Vezza |
|
2008-10-22
|
12 | Amy Vezza | [Note]: 'RFC 5330' added by Amy Vezza |
|
2008-10-17
|
12 | (System) | RFC published |
|
2008-09-08
|
12 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
|
2008-09-08
|
12 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
|
2008-09-08
|
12 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
|
2008-09-08
|
12 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan |
|
2008-09-05
|
12 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
|
2008-09-05
|
12 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
|
2008-09-04
|
12 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
|
2008-09-04
|
12 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
|
2008-09-04
|
12 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
|
2008-09-04
|
12 | Ross Callon | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Ross Callon |
|
2008-09-04
|
12 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Tim Polk has been changed to No Objection from Undefined by Tim Polk |
|
2008-09-04
|
12 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Tim Polk has been changed to Undefined from Discuss by Tim Polk |
|
2008-09-01
|
12 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Pasi Eronen has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Pasi Eronen |
|
2008-09-01
|
12 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
|
2008-09-01
|
12 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-number-0-bw-te-lsps-12.txt |
|
2008-08-29
|
12 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2008-08-28 |
|
2008-08-28
|
12 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan |
|
2008-08-28
|
12 | Russ Housley | [Ballot comment] Ben Campbell provided comments on -09 of this document based on his Gen-ART Review, and they have not been addressed. The Gen-ART … [Ballot comment] Ben Campbell provided comments on -09 of this document based on his Gen-ART Review, and they have not been addressed. The Gen-ART Last Call comments were mostly editorial, and all minor. Since the comments are minor, I am not entering a DISCUSS, but it is really bad form to ignore Last Call comments. Please be more respectful of reviewer time in the future. Since others have entered DISCUSS positions on this document, please consider these comments from Ben Campbell. Abstract: Please expand TLV and IS-IS on first use. Expanding OSPF would not hurt, but it is probably well-known enough not to require expansion. s/"statistical assumption"/"statistical assumptions" (should be plural.) Requirements Language: It's a bit odd to see this prior to the Table of Contents. I usually see it in the terminology section. I don't know if it matters. Section 1: Most of the terms are just acronym expansions. It might be nice to put in short definitions, unless all of the terms are sufficiently well- known not to need definitions. Section 2, paragraph 1: I find the heavy use of parentheses to detract from the flow of the paragraph. Also, when nesting parentheses, please use other symbols. For example ( ... [ ... { ... } ... ] ... ) instead of ( ... ( ... ( ... ) ... ) ... ) paragraph 2: s/"other metric"/"other metrics" (should be plural.) "Unfortunately, for instance in the presence of ECMPs (Equal Cost Multi-Paths) in symmetrical networks when unconstrained TE LSPs are used, such metrics (e.g. path cost, number of hops, ...) are usually ineffective and may lead to poorly load balanced traffic." I found this sentence hard to follow. Can it be simplified? paragraph 3: s/"statistical assumption"/"statistical assumptions" (should be plural.) Also, can you offer a sentence or two explaining what you mean by "statistical assumptions"? I think I know what you mean, but I don't think it will be obvious to all readers. paragraph 5: A comma would be a better choice than parentheses in this context. paragraph 7: Why is it okay to omit unconstrained TE LSPs that are provisioned? Section 3.1, definition of "Value" Is the encoding of the numeric value well-known for this context, or should this document specify it? Section 3.2, definition of "Value" Is the encoding of the numeric value well-known for this context, or should this document specify it? Section 4 , title: I'm not sure what the title means. I suggest "Procedures". paragraph 1: Is that intended to be a normative SHOULD? Section 5: The text said the type numbers were to be assigned by IANA, with 23 being a suggested value. That is not clear in the IANA considerations. Section 6: Can the information carried in this new parameter ever be sensitive, or useful to an attacker? I'm not saying it is, but it might be useful to mention this one way or another in the security considerations. |
|
2008-08-28
|
12 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley |
|
2008-08-28
|
12 | Lisa Dusseault | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault |
|
2008-08-28
|
12 | Tim Polk | [Ballot discuss] Another issue that can be resolved with an RFC Editor Note: In addition to the changes requested by Pasi, I believe an informative … [Ballot discuss] Another issue that can be resolved with an RFC Editor Note: In addition to the changes requested by Pasi, I believe an informative reference to draft-ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-framework would be appropriate in the security considerations section. While I expect that document to endure several more revision cycles, I think we should start referencing it now! [Note that this would resolve the much more general observations from Phil Hallam-Baker's secdir review.] |
|
2008-08-28
|
12 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Tim Polk |
|
2008-08-28
|
12 | Mark Townsley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Mark Townsley |
|
2008-08-28
|
12 | Jon Peterson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jon Peterson |
|
2008-08-27
|
12 | Chris Newman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Chris Newman |
|
2008-08-27
|
12 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica |
|
2008-08-27
|
12 | David Ward | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by David Ward |
|
2008-08-27
|
12 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jari Arkko |
|
2008-08-26
|
12 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings |
|
2008-08-26
|
12 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot discuss] All these could be easily fixed by an RFC Editor note, hopefully allowing this DISCUSS to go away before the telechat: The document … [Ballot discuss] All these could be easily fixed by an RFC Editor note, hopefully allowing this DISCUSS to go away before the telechat: The document should reference [draft-ietf-isis-te-bis] instead of [RFC3784] (the latter would be a downref). Section 6: The reference to RFC 2470 ("Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Token Ring Networks") probably intends to point to RFC 5340 (which obsoletes RFC 2740). Section 6: The text should say security considerations for IS-IS are discussed in [draft-ietf-isis-rfc3567bis] (this is what we said in the other IS-IS extensions, too; RFC 1195 doesn't really have meaningful security considerations text). |
|
2008-08-26
|
12 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Pasi Eronen has been changed to Discuss from No Objection by Pasi Eronen |
|
2008-08-26
|
12 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Pasi Eronen |
|
2008-08-25
|
12 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu |
|
2008-08-21
|
12 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Phillip Hallam-Baker |
|
2008-08-21
|
12 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Phillip Hallam-Baker |
|
2008-08-20
|
12 | Ross Callon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ross Callon |
|
2008-08-20
|
12 | Ross Callon | Ballot has been issued by Ross Callon |
|
2008-08-20
|
12 | Ross Callon | Created "Approve" ballot |
|
2008-08-20
|
12 | Ross Callon | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2008-08-28 by Ross Callon |
|
2008-08-20
|
12 | Ross Callon | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from AD Evaluation::AD Followup by Ross Callon |
|
2008-08-19
|
11 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-number-0-bw-te-lsps-11.txt |
|
2008-08-19
|
12 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
|
2008-08-19
|
10 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-number-0-bw-te-lsps-10.txt |
|
2008-07-11
|
12 | Ross Callon | State Changes to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::External Party by Ross Callon |
|
2008-05-02
|
12 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Phillip Hallam-Baker. |
|
2008-05-01
|
12 | Ross Callon | State Changes to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::External Party from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Ross Callon |
|
2008-04-25
|
12 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system |
|
2008-04-21
|
12 | Amanda Baber | IANA Last Call comments: Action 1: Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following assignments in the "IS-IS TLV Codepoints per [ … IANA Last Call comments: Action 1: Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following assignments in the "IS-IS TLV Codepoints per [RFC3563]" registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints sub-registry "Sub-TLVs for TLV 22" Type Description Reference ------- -------------------------------------------- --------- tbd(23) Unconstrained TE LSP Count [RFC-mpls-number-0-bw-te-lsps-09] Action 2: Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following assignments in the "Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) Traffic Engineering TLVs" registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/ospf-traffic-eng-tlvs sub-registry "Types for sub-TLVs of TE Link TLV (Value 2)" Value Sub-TLV Reference ----------- ------------------------------------------------------ --------- tbd(23) Unconstrained TE LSP Count [RFC-mpls-number-0-bw-te-lsps-09] We understand the above to be the only IANA Actions for this document. |
|
2008-04-12
|
12 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Phillip Hallam-Baker |
|
2008-04-12
|
12 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Phillip Hallam-Baker |
|
2008-04-11
|
12 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
|
2008-04-11
|
12 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza |
|
2008-04-11
|
12 | Ross Callon | Last Call was requested by Ross Callon |
|
2008-04-11
|
12 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
|
2008-04-11
|
12 | (System) | Last call text was added |
|
2008-04-11
|
12 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
|
2008-04-11
|
12 | Ross Callon | State Changes to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested by Ross Callon |
|
2008-04-02
|
12 | Cindy Morgan | A Link-Type sub-TLV to convey the number of Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths signalled with zero reserved bandwidth across a link (draft-ietf-mpls-number-0-bw-te-lsps-09) Requested … A Link-Type sub-TLV to convey the number of Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths signalled with zero reserved bandwidth across a link (draft-ietf-mpls-number-0-bw-te-lsps-09) Requested Publication Status: Proposed Standard ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1.a) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the Internet Draft (ID), and in particular, do they believe this ID is ready to forward to the IESG for publication? Yes. Both mpls wg co-chairs reviewed this version of the ID. Based on the WG comments, we believe the ID is ready for publication. See nits section! 1.b) Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members and key non-WG members? Yes, the document has been through wg last call with good and constructive comments, it has also been reviewed by subject-matter experts that are WG members. Do you have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? Well - I just had and asked the OSPF and IS-IS chairs if they thinks it is a good idea to wg last call it in their wg's. We've also had this discussion and Ross said: "Okay. In my opinion the amount of review seems generous considering the small size of the draft, the extent to which the draft is consistent with other similar information which is already defined and used in current deployments, and the simplicity of the draft. Given that this is standards track, we need to do an IETF last call on the draft anyway. Thus, how about if someone (one of the WG chairs) sends me a PROTO writeup for the document. Then I will start the last call, and we can flag the IETF last call in email to the appropriate WG mailing lists (OSPF, IS-IS, CCAMP, and MPLS). The specific reviews that Dave has requested can occur in parallel." This is OK with the wg chairs. 1.c) Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, etc.)? None other than what is mentioned above. 1.d) Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or have concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if your issues have been discussed in the WG and the WG has indicated it that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns in the write-up. No. The internet-draft was produced by working group memebers with expereince from LDP implentations and testing. 1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? This document represents the WG consensus as a whole: the WG as a whole understands and agrees with it. 1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email to the Responsible Area Director. No. 1.g) Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to all of the ID nits? (see http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html). The ID-nits tool gives the following output: == Outdated reference: A later version (-10) exists of draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-traffic-09 -- Possible downref: Normative reference to a draft: ref. 'I-D.ietf-ospf-ospfv3-traffic' (No intended status found in state file of draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-traffic) ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 3784 Summary: 1 error (**), 1 warning (==), 1 comment (--). The outdated reference is easily fixed, and the down ref is *wrong* since the ospfv3-traffic draft clearly says it is intended for standards track. 1.h) Is the document split into normative and informative references? Yes. Are there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are not also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? (note here that the RFC editor will not publish an RFC with normative references to IDs, it will delay publication until all such IDs are also ready for publication as RFCs.) No. As we understands it the ospfv3-traffic is of about the same maturity as the zero-bw draft and should be progressed shortly. 1.i) For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval announcement includes a write-up section with the following sections: * Technical Summary * Working Group Summary * Protocol Quality 1.j) Please provide such a write-up. Recent examples can be found in the "protocol action" announcements for approved documents. --- Technical Summary A common strategy in MPLS fast recovery is to rely on local repair, this strategy migght rely on MPLS fast reroute. What is done is to set up a full mmesh of TE LSPs, signalled with zero bandwidth between LSRs to protoct TE LSPs. There may be several kinds of failures, e.g. links, SRLGs or node failures. When traffic is routed on to TE LSP without (unconstrained LSPs) signaled bandwidth it simply follows that IGP shotest Path. When a When protection actions are triggered for constrained and unconstrained the result may vary drastically. For a constrained LSP the the reoptimization process is based on the same metrics that were used to set up the LSP in the first place. Unfortunately, for instance in the presence of ECMPs in symmetrical networks such metrics very iften are ineffective and may lead to poorly load balanced traffic. Instead it is possible to make statistical assumptions traffic aggregates that is carried on unconstrained TE LSPs. Algorithms can be designed to load balance unconstrained TE LSPs over a set of equal cost paths. To have such paradims work it is neessary to know the number of unconstrained TE LSPs on each link. This draft defines a method to distribute that knowledge. ============>>>> --- Working Group Summary The Working Group has consensus to publish this document as a Proposed Standard. --- Protocol Quality The document has been reviewed by experts form the MPLS working group as well as being lst called in the working, the comments received from the experts and the working has been addressed and the document updated. --- Implementations We don't know of any implementations of the specification. |
|
2008-04-02
|
12 | Cindy Morgan | Draft Added by Cindy Morgan in state Publication Requested |
|
2008-02-06
|
09 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-number-0-bw-te-lsps-09.txt |
|
2007-12-06
|
08 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-number-0-bw-te-lsps-08.txt |
|
2007-11-16
|
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-number-0-bw-te-lsps-07.txt |
|
2007-06-29
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-number-0-bw-te-lsps-06.txt |
|
2006-12-12
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-number-0-bw-te-lsps-05.txt |
|
2006-12-08
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-number-0-bw-te-lsps-04.txt |
|
2006-12-01
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-number-0-bw-te-lsps-03.txt |
|
2006-06-27
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-number-0-bw-te-lsps-02.txt |
|
2006-05-24
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-number-0-bw-te-lsps-01.txt |
|
2006-05-16
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-number-0-bw-te-lsps-00.txt |