[CCAMP] Comments on draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-h-lsp-mln-00

"Sadler, Jonathan B." <Jonathan.Sadler@tellabs.com> Wed, 28 July 2010 12:47 UTC

Return-Path: <Jonathan.Sadler@tellabs.com>
X-Original-To: ccamp@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6400E28C0E8 for <ccamp@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 05:47:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.299, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XxjSPaIWdQNb for <ccamp@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 05:47:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx4.tellabs.com (mx4.tellabs.com [204.154.129.57]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B72D128C152 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 05:47:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.55,274,1278288000"; d="scan'208,217"; a="1326602528"
Received: from usnvwwmspht01.hq.tellabs.com (HELO usnvwwmspht01.tellabs-west.tellabsinc.net) ([172.23.211.69]) by mx4-priv.tellabs.com with ESMTP; 28 Jul 2010 12:47:37 +0000
Received: from EX-NAP.tellabs-west.tellabsinc.net ([172.23.211.71]) by usnvwwmspht01.tellabs-west.tellabsinc.net ([172.23.211.69]) with mapi; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 07:47:37 -0500
From: "Sadler, Jonathan B." <Jonathan.Sadler@tellabs.com>
To: "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 07:46:32 -0500
Thread-Topic: Comments on draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-h-lsp-mln-00
Thread-Index: AcsuUp939hT3HLL8Rru4Nxrw30R0eQ==
Message-ID: <5292FFA96EC22A4386067E9DBCC0CD2BCF33A0DDB1@EX-NAP.tellabs-west.tellabsinc.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_5292FFA96EC22A4386067E9DBCC0CD2BCF33A0DDB1EXNAPtellabsw_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [CCAMP] Comments on draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-h-lsp-mln-00
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp>
List-Post: <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 12:47:20 -0000

Hello Fatai and Dan,

In this I-D, it looks like source node is specifying the specific technology used in the lower layer connection (i.e. the connection from Node B to C).

If Nodes B, E and C (as shown in Figures 2 and 3) are being provided by a separate carrier, this amounts to the customer of the service provider telling the service provider how to deliver their service.  This is problematic as the carrier may have different policy from the customer for how to deliver the service requested in the client layer.  In this case, do you envision the operator of Nodes B, E and C ignoring or refusing the service request?

Also, how do you signal the specific adaptation method that should be used?  If the adaptations used in Node B and Node C don't match, then the lower layer connection will not be useable by the client layer so coordination is important.

Finally, do you see this as being able to operate in a topology that has a widely varying topography (i.e. transitions down through multiple lower layers  and doesn't make an assumption the layers are simply nested)?

Thanks,

Jonathan  Sadler