Re: Addressing doc
Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be Sun, 17 April 2005 08:29 UTC
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA02839 for <ccamp-archive@ietf.org>; Sun, 17 Apr 2005 04:29:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] ident=mailnull) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DN5Kl-0002qs-Ql for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 17 Apr 2005 04:40:54 -0400
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.44 (FreeBSD)) id 1DN4wB-000B88-DA for ccamp-data@psg.com; Sun, 17 Apr 2005 08:15:27 +0000
Received: from [62.23.212.165] (helo=smail.alcatel.fr) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.44 (FreeBSD)) id 1DN4w8-000B7s-WB for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Sun, 17 Apr 2005 08:15:25 +0000
Received: from bemail05.netfr.alcatel.fr (bemail05.netfr.alcatel.fr [155.132.251.11]) by smail.alcatel.fr (ALCANET/NETFR) with ESMTP id j3H8FK9x017224; Sun, 17 Apr 2005 10:15:20 +0200
To: Igor Bryskin <i_bryskin@yahoo.com>
Cc: Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be, Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>, ccamp@ops.ietf.org
From: Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be
Subject: Re: Addressing doc
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 10:15:19 +0200
Message-ID: <OF15864174.5C11781A-ONC1256FE6.002D58EF-C1256FE6.002D5937@netfr.alcatel.fr>
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on BEMAIL05/BE/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.12HF788 | September 23, 2004) at 04/17/2005 10:15:20
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Alcanet-MTA-scanned-and-authorized: yes
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.1 (2004-10-22) on psg.com
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no version=3.0.1
Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 2e8fc473f5174be667965460bd5288ba
igor, my point is that if you recommend " A Path message is sent to the next hop node. It is RECOMMENDED that the TE router ID of the next hop node be used as an IP destination address in the packet that carries the RSVP-TE message. " and " ... an unnumbered link is identified by the combination of TE Router ID and a node-unique Interface ID." then it is clear that the following occurs " The reason why the TE Router ID must be a reachable IP address is because in GMPLS, control and data plane names/addresses are not completely separated. " and the only change that needs to be done in this document in section 4.3 "It is RECOMMENDED that a stable control plane IP address of the next/previous hop node be used as an IP destination address in RSVP-TE message. A Path message is sent to the next hop node. It is RECOMMENDED that the TE router ID of the next hop node be used as an IP destination address in the packet that carries the RSVP-TE message." is to remove the second paragraph, as there is nothing that mandates that communication between adjacent controllers should achieved through TE router ID (note: reading the document you will see that the section 5.2.1 is indeed not completed just for this reason) in fact, this boils down to say that the TE router ID is not mandatorily used for hop-by-hop exchange of control messages as i can build adjacencies between neighboring nodes using the base IP routing topology, (by the way from where all restrictions that are pointed here below come from ?) thanks, - dimitri. --- Dimitri, Suppose a controller has just received an RSVP Path message that contains an ERO describing a path computed on the head-end (properly modified, of course, along the path). ERO is specified in terms of numbered or/and unnumbered TE links (and not IP addresses). Now the processing controller needs to forward the message to the controller that manages first non-local ERO sub-object. The question is what to set as destination in the IP header of the RSVP Path message? You are saying that it should a stable IP address of the controller managing the next hop. Where the processing controller is supposed to get this stable IP address from? All that it has is a numbered or unnumbered next hop TE link ID. It is not guaranteed that numbered TE link ID is a routable address, however, it could be easily resolved to TE Router ID. In case of unnumbered TE link the TE Router ID is a part of the link ID. It is also guaranteed that TE Router ID is a stable routable IP address of the controller advertising the TE link. Hence, the recommendation makes a lot of sense to me ? extract TE Router ID from unnumbered link ID ERO subobject or resolve numbered TE link ID into TE Router ID, set it as destination in IP header of the RSVP Path message and forward the packet ?the message will arrive at the controller managing next hop no matter how many actual IP hops the packet will make. In fact, that's how the control plane and data plane separation needs to be supported. Cheers, Igor --- Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be wrote: > > this document is not ready as it prevents usage of > the control channel > separation as defined in Section 8 of RFC 3473 (but > also representation of > complex nodes) > > i point out here the sentences from where this can > be deduced: > > " A Path message is sent to the next hop node. It > is RECOMMENDED that > the TE router ID of the next hop node be used as > an IP destination > address in the packet that carries the RSVP-TE > message. " > > combined with the following statements > > " ... an unnumbered link is identified by the > combination of TE Router ID and a node-unique > Interface ID." > > " It is RECOMMENDED that the IP tunnel endpoint > address in the Session > Object [RFC3209] be set to the TE Router ID of > the egress since the > TE Router ID is a unique routable ID per node." > > [...] > > " It is RECOMMENDED that the IP tunnel sender > address in the Sender > Template Object [RFC3209] specifies the TE Router > ID of the ingress > since the TE Router ID is a unique routable ID > per node." > > therefore, usage of the TE Router ID should be > reviewed, such that it does > not recommends the source and destination of IP > packets to be the TE Router > ID but simply a stable reachable control plane IP > address of the > next/previous hop > > also, there is a sentence in this document > > " The reason why the TE Router ID must be a > reachable IP address is > because in GMPLS, control and data plane names > /addresses are not > completely separated. " > > my response to this is of course if you use it like > proposed in this > document this problem occurs > > ps: > > section 5.1.2 of this document is unclear wrt > section 1.1 of > <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-isis-gmpls-extensions-19.txt> > > > > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Plan great trips with Yahoo! Travel: Now over 17,000 guides! http://travel.yahoo.com/p-travelguide
- Re: Addressing doc Eiji Oki
- Addressing doc Kireeti Kompella
- RE: Addressing doc Zafar Ali
- Re: Addressing doc ibryskin
- Re: Addressing doc Dimitri.Papadimitriou
- Re: Addressing doc Igor Bryskin
- RE: Addressing doc Richard Rabbat
- Re: Addressing doc Dimitri.Papadimitriou
- Re: Addressing doc Igor Bryskin
- Re: Addressing doc Dimitri.Papadimitriou
- RE: Addressing doc Ong, Lyndon
- RE: Addressing doc Richard Rabbat
- RE: Addressing doc Richard Rabbat
- Re: Addressing doc dimitri papadimitriou
- Re: Addressing doc Diego Caviglia
- Re: Addressing doc Diego Caviglia
- RE: Addressing doc Richard Rabbat
- RE: Addressing doc Rajiv Papneja
- Re: Addressing doc Igor Bryskin
- RE: Addressing doc Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS
- Re: Addressing doc Igor Bryskin
- RE: Addressing doc Richard Rabbat
- RE: Addressing doc Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS
- RE: Addressing doc Sadler, Jonathan B.
- RE: Addressing doc Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS
- RE: Addressing doc Ong, Lyndon
- RE: Addressing doc Alan Davey
- Re: Addressing doc dimitri papadimitriou
- Re: Addressing doc Igor Bryskin
- Re: Addressing doc dimitri papadimitriou
- RE: Addressing doc Sadler, Jonathan B.
- OIF topic Richard Rabbat
- RE: Addressing doc inoue.ichiro@lab.ntt.co.jp
- Re: Addressing doc Kohei Shiomoto
- RE: Addressing doc Yumiko Kawashima
- RE : Addressing doc LE ROUX Jean-Louis RD-CORE-LAN
- Re: Addressing doc Hidetsugu Sugiyama
- RE: Addressing doc Vishal Sharma
- RE: Addressing doc Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS
- RE: Addressing doc Ong, Lyndon
- Re: Addressing doc Wataru Imajuku
- Re: Addressing doc Thomas D. Nadeau
- RE: Addressing doc Richard Rabbat
- RE: Addressing doc Dimitri.Papadimitriou
- RE: Addressing doc Richard Rabbat
- RE: Addressing doc Diego Caviglia
- RE: Addressing doc Rajiv Papneja
- Decission on Addressing draft Adrian Farrel
- RE: Addressing doc Richard Rabbat
- RE: Addressing doc Diego Caviglia
- RE: Addressing doc Dimitri.Papadimitriou
- Re: Addressing doc Adrian Farrel
- RE: Addressing doc Richard Rabbat
- Re: Addressing doc Dimitri.Papadimitriou