ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-07

2017-02-08 04:15:35
Hi Pete,

This is an “inheritance” from GMPLS, where supporting a single priority equals 
not supporting priorities. If you don’t want to support priorities you don’t 
want your traffic to be preempted…hence priority 0.


Well, it doesn't say that shouldn't be done, but it probably doesn't need to 
say anything about local configurations.
For me it’s ok not to say anything on that.

Thanks
Daniele

From: Pete Resnick [mailto:presnick(_at_)qti(_dot_)qualcomm(_dot_)com]
Sent: martedì 7 febbraio 2017 18:05
To: Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele(_dot_)ceccarelli(_at_)ericsson(_dot_)com>
Cc: Jari Arkko <jari(_dot_)arkko(_at_)piuha(_dot_)net>; 
gen-art(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; 
draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext(_dot_)all(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; 
ccamp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-07


Hi Daniele,

Thanks for addressing everything. There's only one issue left in section 4.1.1 
on Priority, below. I've trimmed out all the rest.

On 7 Feb 2017, at 3:36, Daniele Ceccarelli wrote:

I get that part ("At least one priority level MUST be advertised"). It's the 
end I don't understand: "that, unless overridden by local policy, SHALL be at 
priority level 0." What does that mean?

[DC] It means that if only one priority is supported it has to be priority 0.

So, let me see if I have this right: It's OK to have 01100000 but not 01000000 
or 00100000? If so, why is that?

For any particular administrative purpose it could be possible to set it to a 
different value, but that shouldn’t be done.

Well, it doesn't say that shouldn't be done, but it probably doesn't need to 
say anything about local configurations.

pr
--
Pete Resnick 
http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/<http://www.qualcomm.com/%7Epresnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478