Re: Addressing doc
Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be Sat, 16 April 2005 20:16 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 QAA07140 for <ccamp-archive@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Apr 2005 16:16:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] ident=mailnull) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DMtsm-00078I-6U for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 16 Apr 2005 16:27:14 -0400
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.44 (FreeBSD)) id 1DMtZ4-000H2Z-AG for ccamp-data@psg.com; Sat, 16 Apr 2005 20:06:50 +0000
Received: from [64.208.49.165] (helo=smail.alcatel.fr) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.44 (FreeBSD)) id 1DMtZ3-000H29-72 for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 16 Apr 2005 20:06:49 +0000
Received: from bemail05.netfr.alcatel.fr (bemail05.netfr.alcatel.fr [155.132.251.11]) by smail.alcatel.fr (ALCANET/NETFR) with ESMTP id j3GK6i9x011053; Sat, 16 Apr 2005 22:06:44 +0200
To: Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
From: Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be
Subject: Re: Addressing doc
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 22:06:42 +0200
Message-ID: <OFD60EAB50.6D60A7CD-ONC1256FE5.006E79D8-C1256FE5.006E7A4A@netfr.alcatel.fr>
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on BEMAIL05/BE/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.12HF788 | September 23, 2004) at 04/16/2005 22:06:44
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: c1c65599517f9ac32519d043c37c5336
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>
- 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