RE: Fwd: draft-ietf-iptel-trip-gw-00.txt has been posted
Dhaval Shah <[email protected]> Thu, 13 Jun 2002 08:24:36 -0700
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.iptel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
--=====================_259911613==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 01:44 PM 6/12/2002 -0400, Anna Cheung wrote: >Hi Dhaval, > >Follow up to your reply for question >2 below. Why do you want to make the prefix attribute a mandatory >attribute for the prefix address family? The reachableRoute and withdrawRoute Towards the end of section 4.7.1 of trip-gw draft, we have, "The Prefix attributes MUST NOT be used with the Prefix address families." Also, please note that it's *conditional* mandatory. Thx, Dhaval > >as defined in the TRIP rfc 3219 can be a set or sequence of prefixes. > >Thanks >/Anna >-----Original Message----- >From: Dhaval Shah [mailto:[email protected]] >Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 9:15 PM >To: Anna Cheung >Cc: [email protected]; Li Li >Subject: RE: [IPTEL] Fwd: draft-ietf-iptel-trip-gw-00.txt has been posted > >Hi Anna, > >Please see comments inlined below.. > >At 02:34 PM 6/10/2002 -0400, Anna Cheung wrote: >>Hi Dhaval, >> >>I have some questions after reading the trip-gw draft, and hope >>you or somebody in the work group could clarify. >> >>Thanks >>/Anna >> >> >>1) Available Capacity (AC) is defined as non-transitive >>in the draft. I'm just wondering if it should be transitive instead. >>The reason being if the LS fronting the GW does not advertises >>the AC of the route to other LS's in the core of the network, then there >>could be cases where a route is selected with higher TotalCapacity but >>lower available Capacity. (From the draft, it seems to be >>the reason it is defined as non-transitive is due to the fact that >>it might change frequently. But if the GW only advertises when >>somethrehold is crossed, then the frequency might not be a big problem >>for the LS ??) >This would add another level of complexity and gets into tuning >to avoid staleness etc. We analyzed this and thought of not including at >this time. > >>2) Section 4.4 prefix attribute, is it saying that the prefix attribute is >>a conditional mandatory attribute for the trunk address family and CIC >>address family? I'm a bit confused by the statement "conditional mandatory >>(if reachable routes is present)" >This means that if the reachableroutes attribute is present, then the prefix >attribute must be present. A length of zero for the prefix attribute >indicates a prefix >that matches all prefixes for the respective address family type and >application protocol. >I thought I had included that statement in the draft but loox like it got >removed while re-arranging >the Prefix attributes section. Will add it in the next rev. > >>3) When a GW advertises a route of type trunk address family (or CIC address >>family), if attribute prefix attribute is NOT present, does it mean the >>advertised >>trunk (or CIC) can be used to reach ANY prefix? >No. Please see note above. > >>4) Can you please clarify why carrier attribute must not be used with >>trunk family >>and trunk attribute must not be used with the CIC family ? >Introduces hierarchy and complexity amongst other reasons and was not >deemed important >enough at this stage. We have noted it as a future issue. > >>5) Reading section 4.10.1, I'm under the impression that an LS may receive >>alternative routes from the same gateway for a given destination. Is this >>true? >> Doesn't the subsequent advertisment of a given route from the same GW >> just replaces >>the previous advertisement? >Section 4.10.1 tries to address the case where the LS may receive >alternative routes >for the same destination from *different* gateways. If the same gateway >wants to advertise >alternative routes for a given destination, then it can send them in one >update to the LS. > >>6) When a GW advertise an update with the follows: >>- trunk address family, >>- trk value=trk1, >>- prefix attribute=1613, >>- nexthop = NH1 >> >>The update is saying that route trk1 and prefix 1613 is >>reachable via NH1. Could we also interpret that 1613 >>is reachable via NH1? >Yes, if you don't care about trk1. > >Hope this helps. > >Thx, >Dhaval > >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Dhaval Shah [mailto:[email protected]] >>Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2002 2:20 PM >>To: [email protected] >>Subject: [IPTEL] Fwd: draft-ietf-iptel-trip-gw-00.txt has been posted >> >>Hi Folx, >> >>Just a follow-up to the draft posting. >> >>The main changes in this version are: >>- Removed Carrier-Trunkgroup attribute and address family and >> references to it. >>- Added Terminology and Definitions section. >>- Updated CallSuccess attribute. >>- Added Prefix attribute. >>- Added Carrier attribute. >>- Added TrunkGroups attribute. >>- Added TrunkGroup Address Family. >>- Added Carrier Address Family. >>- Added Route Consolidation section. >>- Added some more references. >> >>A couple of open issues that come to mind are: >>- International carrier ids >>- Jonathan had a suggestion regarding having an update rate capability >>that the LS would send >>to the gateway. The purpose would be to have the gateway not send updates >>at a rate higher than the >>specified number. >> >>Thx, >>Dhaval >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 07:51:22 -0700 >>>To: [email protected] >>>From: Dhaval Shah <[email protected]> >>>Subject: draft-ietf-iptel-trip-gw-00.txt has been posted >>>Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], >>>Rajneesh Kumar <[email protected]> >>>Bcc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], >>>[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], >>>[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] >>> >>>Hi Folx, >>> >>>The draft is now available on the ftp server: >>>ftp://ftp-eng.cisco.com/dhaval/draft-ietf-iptel-trip-gw-00.txt >>> >>>If someone has problems retrieving it, please email directly and we will >>>email a copy to you. >>> >>>Please let us know if you have any questions. >>> >>>Thx, >>>Dhaval (for the trip-gw team) --=====================_259911613==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" <html> <font size=3>At 01:44 PM 6/12/2002 -0400, Anna Cheung wrote:<br> </font><blockquote type=cite cite><font face="arial" size=2 color="#0000FF">Hi Dhaval, </font><font size=3><br> <br> </font><font face="arial" size=2 color="#0000FF">Follow up to your reply for question</font><font size=3><br> </font><font face="arial" size=2 color="#0000FF">2 below. Why do you want to make the prefix attribute a mandatory</font><font size=3><br> </font><font face="arial" size=2 color="#0000FF">attribute for the prefix address family? The reachableRoute and withdrawRoute</font></blockquote><br> Towards the end of section 4.7.1 of trip-gw draft, we have,<br> "The Prefix attributes MUST NOT be used with the Prefix address<br> families." Also, please note that it's *conditional* mandatory.<br> <br> Thx,<br> Dhaval<br> <br> <blockquote type=cite cite><font face="arial" size=2 color="#0000FF"> </font><font size=3><br> </font><font face="arial" size=2 color="#0000FF">as defined in the TRIP rfc 3219 can be a set or sequence of prefixes. </font><font size=3><br> <br> </font><font face="arial" size=2 color="#0000FF">Thanks</font><font size=3><br> </font><font face="arial" size=2 color="#0000FF">/Anna </font><font size=3></font> <dl><font face="tahoma" size=2> <dd>-----Original Message----- <dd>From:</b> Dhaval Shah [<a href="mailto:[email protected]" eudora="autourl">mailto:[email protected]</a>] <dd>Sent:</b> Monday, June 10, 2002 9:15 PM <dd>To:</b> Anna Cheung <dd>Cc:</b> [email protected]; Li Li <dd>Subject:</b> RE: [IPTEL] Fwd: draft-ietf-iptel-trip-gw-00.txt has been posted<br> <br> </font><font size=3> <dd>Hi Anna,<br> <br> <dd>Please see comments inlined below..<br> <br> <dd>At 02:34 PM 6/10/2002 -0400, Anna Cheung wrote:</font><blockquote type=cite cite><font face="arial" size=2 color="#0000FF"> <dd>Hi Dhaval, </font><font size=3> <dd> </font><font face="arial" size=2 color="#0000FF"> <dd>I have some questions after reading the trip-gw draft, and hope </font><font size=3></font><font face="arial" size=2 color="#0000FF"> <dd>you or somebody in the work group could clarify. </font><font size=3> <dd> </font><font face="arial" size=2 color="#0000FF"> <dd>Thanks</font><font size=3></font><font face="arial" size=2 color="#0000FF"> <dd>/Anna </font><font size=3> <dd> <dd> </font><font face="arial" size=2 color="#0000FF"> <dd>1) Available Capacity (AC) is defined as non-transitive <dd>in the draft. I'm just wondering if it should be transitive instead. <dd>The reason being if the LS fronting the GW does not advertises <dd>the AC of the route to other LS's in the core of the network, then there <dd>could be cases where a route is selected with higher TotalCapacity but <dd>lower available Capacity. (From the draft, it seems to be <dd>the reason it is defined as non-transitive is due to the fact that <dd>it might change frequently. But if the GW only advertises when <dd>somethrehold is crossed, then the frequency might not be a big problem <dd>for the LS ??)</font></blockquote><font size=3> <dd>This would add another level of complexity and gets into tuning <dd>to avoid staleness etc. We analyzed this and thought of not including at this time.<br> <br> <blockquote type=cite cite></font><font face="arial" size=2 color="#0000FF"> <dd>2) Section 4.4 prefix attribute, is it saying that the prefix attribute is <dd>a conditional mandatory attribute for the trunk address family and CIC <dd>address family? I'm a bit confused by the statement "conditional mandatory <dd>(if reachable routes is present)" </font><font size=3></blockquote> <dd>This means that if the reachableroutes attribute is present, then the prefix <dd>attribute must be present. A length of zero for the prefix attribute indicates a prefix <dd>that matches all prefixes for the respective address family type and application protocol. <dd>I thought I had included that statement in the draft but loox like it got removed while re-arranging <dd>the Prefix attributes section. Will add it in the next rev.<br> <br> </font><blockquote type=cite cite><font face="arial" size=2 color="#0000FF"> <dd>3) When a GW advertises a route of type trunk address family (or CIC address <dd>family), if attribute prefix attribute is NOT present, does it mean the advertised <dd>trunk (or CIC) can be used to reach ANY prefix? </font></blockquote><font size=3> <dd>No. Please see note above.<br> <br> <blockquote type=cite cite></font><font face="arial" size=2 color="#0000FF"> <dd>4) Can you please clarify why carrier attribute must not be used with trunk family <dd>and trunk attribute must not be used with the CIC family ?</font></blockquote><font size=3> <dd>Introduces hierarchy and complexity amongst other reasons and was not deemed important <dd>enough at this stage. We have noted it as a future issue. <dd> </font><blockquote type=cite cite><font face="arial" size=2 color="#0000FF"> <dd>5) Reading section 4.10.1, I'm under the impression that an LS may receive <dd>alternative routes from the same gateway for a given destination. Is this true? </font><font size=3></font><font face="arial" size=2 color="#0000FF"> <dd> Doesn't the subsequent advertisment of a given route from the same GW just replaces <dd>the previous advertisement?</font></blockquote><font size=3> <dd>Section 4.10.1 tries to address the case where the LS may receive alternative routes <dd>for the same destination from *different* gateways. If the same gateway wants to advertise <dd>alternative routes for a given destination, then it can send them in one update to the LS.<br> <br> </font><blockquote type=cite cite><font face="arial" size=2 color="#0000FF"> <dd>6) When a GW advertise an update with the follows: <dd>- trunk address family, <dd>- trk value=trk1, <dd>- prefix attribute=1613, <dd>- nexthop = NH1</font><font size=3> <dd> </font><font face="arial" size=2 color="#0000FF"> <dd>The update is saying that route trk1 and prefix 1613 is <dd>reachable via NH1. Could we also interpret that 1613 <dd>is reachable via NH1? </font></blockquote><font size=3> <dd>Yes, if you don't care about trk1.<br> <br> <dd>Hope this helps.<br> <br> <dd>Thx, <dd>Dhaval<br> <br> <blockquote type=cite cite> <dd> </font><font face="tahoma" size=2> <dd>-----Original Message----- <dd>From: Dhaval Shah [<a href="mailto:[email protected]" eudora="autourl">mailto:[email protected]</a>] <dd>Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2002 2:20 PM <dd>To: [email protected] <dd>Subject: [IPTEL] Fwd: draft-ietf-iptel-trip-gw-00.txt has been posted<br> <br> </font><font size=3> <dd>Hi Folx,<br> <br> <dd>Just a follow-up to the draft posting.<br> <br> <dd>The main changes in this version are: <dd>- Removed Carrier-Trunkgroup attribute and address family and <dd> references to it. <dd>- Added Terminology and Definitions section. <dd>- Updated CallSuccess attribute. <dd>- Added Prefix attribute. <dd>- Added Carrier attribute. <dd>- Added TrunkGroups attribute. <dd>- Added TrunkGroup Address Family. <dd>- Added Carrier Address Family. <dd>- Added Route Consolidation section. <dd>- Added some more references.<br> <br> <dd>A couple of open issues that come to mind are: <dd>- International carrier ids <dd>- Jonathan had a suggestion regarding having an update rate capability that the LS would send <dd>to the gateway. The purpose would be to have the gateway not send updates at a rate higher than the <dd>specified number.<br> <br> <dd>Thx, <dd>Dhaval<br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <blockquote type=cite cite> <dd>Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 07:51:22 -0700 <dd>To: [email protected] <dd>From: Dhaval Shah <[email protected]> <dd>Subject: draft-ietf-iptel-trip-gw-00.txt has been posted <dd>Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Rajneesh Kumar <[email protected]> <dd>Bcc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]<br> <br> <dd>Hi Folx,<br> <br> <dd>The draft is now available on the ftp server: <dd><a href="ftp://ftp-eng.cisco.com/dhaval/draft-ietf-iptel-trip-gw-00.txt" eudora="autourl">ftp://ftp-eng.cisco.com/dhaval/draft-ietf-iptel-trip-gw-00.txt</a><br> <br> <dd>If someone has problems retrieving it, please email directly and we will <dd>email a copy to you.<br> <br> <dd>Please let us know if you have any questions.<br> <br> <dd>Thx, <dd>Dhaval (for the trip-gw team) </blockquote> </dl></font></blockquote></blockquote></html> --=====================_259911613==_.ALT--