Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context
Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com> Thu, 20 December 2012 15:51 UTC
Return-Path: <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AA0721F888F for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 07:51:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.175
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.175 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.868, BAYES_00=-2.599, CN_BODY_35=0.339, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_110=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_55=0.6, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id b4ecXSFl7xBD for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 07:51:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailgw2.ericsson.se (mailgw2.ericsson.se [193.180.251.37]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED24521F85D9 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 07:51:43 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb25-b7fb26d000006129-5b-50d3340e91e7
Received: from ESESSHC013.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by mailgw2.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id C4.FC.24873.E0433D05; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 16:51:43 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ESESSMB301.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.209]) by ESESSHC013.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.57]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 16:51:42 +0100
From: Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>
To: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context
Thread-Index: Ac3cSA0EmhmMt2XQR3eDsLDm5eAESgAPpvQAAFPqDzAAC9tFgAAL4JUAAAV55wAAE0X84AAHy6cAAAMVafD///jrgP//7dYA
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 15:51:41 +0000
Message-ID: <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE48045BBA@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se>
References: <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE48042C3B@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se> <50CF764E.603@labn.net> <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE48045007@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se> <CDAC6F6F5401B245A2C68D0CF8AFDF0A191012D6@atl-srv-mail10.atl.advaoptical.com> <50D248B8.1090506@labn.net> <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF835841B4C@SZXEML552-MBX.china.huawei.com> <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE480456A7@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se> <50D32320.3010707@labn.net> <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE48045B14@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se> <50D331E1.5000703@labn.net>
In-Reply-To: <50D331E1.5000703@labn.net>
Accept-Language: it-IT, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.18]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFjrLLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+JvjS6/yeUAgz33OCyezLnBYtHR/JbF gcljyZKfTB4fNjWzBTBFcdmkpOZklqUW6dslcGUc/TubseDEQcaKrjmeDYxn9jB2MXJySAiY SOzc/hjKFpO4cG89WxcjF4eQwCFGiRu7t7JAOEsYJf4tW87UxcjBwSZgJfHkkA9Ig4iAosTX j4uYQGxmASmJu7e6wAYJC1hIrF17kBGixlKiafV0Vgg7T+JZ+xp2kDEsAqoSd9/Xg4R5Bbwl /p78zgyxaiGLxNQLZ5lBEpwCGhJrZl9hB7EZBWQlJuxexAixS1zi1pP5TBBHC0gs2XOeGcIW lXj5+B8rhK0o8fHVPqh6LYl5Db+h7lSUmNL9kB1isaDEyZlPWCYwis1CMnYWkpZZSFpmIWlZ wMiyipE9NzEzJ73caBMjMEoObvmtuoPxzjmRQ4zSHCxK4rzhrhcChATSE0tSs1NTC1KL4otK c1KLDzEycXBKNTCKf/94O0P90+ZL0nmfHq0zPOWvm7dB7NcBXZGXngLLf/B0/PN73ZsylUf3 egKv60FVpgaP0vuR4tpPvL+anl+xxvyLJp+c/TeVgEdanVWf8vqPzKjO0ZKO/6bl5DFxbitL y+7r8vs+2+gYhB/wzFj+Peovm+KaGp8I2x3zlxVXPve8W3d4z1MlluKMREMt5qLiRADRUp3Z YAIAAA==
Cc: CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 15:51:50 -0000
You thought the world was grey, I spent half an hour to write an email trying to convince you that world is white and now you're convinced that the world is black!!! :) >-----Original Message----- >From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net] >Sent: giovedì 20 dicembre 2012 16.42 >To: Daniele Ceccarelli >Cc: Fatai Zhang; Igor Bryskin; BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO); CCAMP >Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context > >Daniele, > >The piece that's missing from your mail is that your "vpn" >terms have wider scope than just VPNs. For example CEs, PEs, access >interfaces|links, inter-domain interfaces|links have scope well beyond >VPNs. > >An alternate conclusion (which you have me now leaning >towards) is that we should just use CE and PE in place of OE and OC. > >Lou > >On 12/20/2012 10:32 AM, Daniele Ceccarelli wrote: >> Excellent, >> >> So you'd agree with the general overlay definitions of OC >and OE. (which in the case of VPNs will be called CE and PE). >> >> What about an analogous approach when we move from nodes to >interfaces/links. A general name for the overlay most general >case where specific exisitng names can be places (the famous umbrella). >> >> - In the more generic case of overlay: the nodes are called >OC and OE >> and the interface between OC and OE is called (ONI, OI, OCI, xxxlink >> or whatever) >> - In the case of interface supporting signaling only: The (ONI, OI, >> OCI, xxxlink or whatever) is a particular case of (ONI, OI, OCI or >> whatever) and is called UNI, and the nodes at its ends are called CN >> and EN (RFC4208) >> - In the case of VPNs: the (ONI, OI, OCI, xxxlink or >whatever) is called access link and the nodes are called CE and PE. >> >> I see no other way of putting some order among all the >already existing terms. >> >> BR >> Daniele >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net] >>> Sent: giovedì 20 dicembre 2012 15.39 >>> To: Daniele Ceccarelli >>> Cc: Fatai Zhang; Igor Bryskin; BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO); CCAMP >>> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context >>> >>> Daniele, >>> >>> Just my opinion, but I see overlays as the (much) more >generic term. >>> I think LxVPNs are types of overlays, as are traditional layered >>> networks, as are the technologies that match/will result from >>> discussions taking place in the NVO3 context. >>> >>> Lou >>> >>> On 12/20/2012 5:22 AM, Daniele Ceccarelli wrote: >>>> I prefer using reference points instead of links. >>>> Access link and inter-domain links means tens of things in >different >>>> contexts, while e.g. UNI means one single thing and clearly >>> identifies >>>> the context. BTW it's just a preference, I don't mind how we'll >>>> finally call it. >>>> >>>> There's one thing I would rather like to clarify and it's the >>>> relationship with VPNs. We have two options: >>>> >>>> 1) Is a VPN a particular case of the overlay model? >>>> or >>>> 2) Is the overlay model a particular case of VPN? >>>> >>>> I think this can help a lot with terminology. I've always >assumed 1) >>>> but from what I read I tend to see that 2) has several supporters. >>>> >>> >>>> BR >>>> Daniele >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Fatai Zhang [mailto:zhangfatai@huawei.com] >>>>> Sent: giovedì 20 dicembre 2012 2.44 >>>>> To: Lou Berger; Igor Bryskin; BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO); Daniele >>>>> Ceccarelli >>>>> Cc: CCAMP >>>>> Subject: 答复: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context >>>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> Support. >>>>> >>>>> People are more familiar with the existing things like >>> "access links" >>>>> and "inter-domain links" (or E-NNI links). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Best Regards >>>>> >>>>> Fatai >>>>> >>>>> -----邮件原件----- >>>>> 发件人: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 >>>>> Lou Berger >>>>> 发送时间: 2012年12月20日 7:08 >>>>> 收件人: Igor Bryskin >>>>> 抄送: CCAMP >>>>> 主题: Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context >>>>> >>>>> Igor, >>>>> >>>>> You said: >>>>> IB>> I like "access links" and "inter-domain links" better. >>>>> >>>>> This works for me. >>>>> >>>>> Lou >>>>> >>>>> On 12/19/2012 12:27 PM, Igor Bryskin wrote: >>>>>> Lou, please see my answers to your questions >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] >>>>> On Behalf >>>>>> Of Daniele Ceccarelli >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 5:57 AM >>>>>> To: Lou Berger >>>>>> Cc: CCAMP >>>>>> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Lou, >>>>>> >>>>>> Plese find replies in line. >>>>>> >>>>>> BR >>>>>> Daniele >>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net] >>>>>>> Sent: lunedì 17 dicembre 2012 20.45 >>>>>>> To: Daniele Ceccarelli >>>>>>> Cc: CCAMP >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Daniele, >>>>>>> Thanks for getting this on-list discussion >going. I have some >>>>>>> comments and questions: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - So what's a "client layer network" in this context? >>> Perhaps you >>>>>>> mean OC or "(overlay) customer layer"? >>>>>> >>>>>> IB>> Client layer is where Overlay Network topology exists. >>>>> It includes: >>>>>> a) access links (connecting OCs to OEs) >>>>>> b) virtual links (connecting OE / OVNs (Overlay Virtual >>>>> Nodes) within >>>>>> a given server domain) >>>>>> c) inter-domain links (connecting OE to OE that belong to >>>>> neighboring >>>>>> server domains) All three categories exist in the same >>> client layer >>>>>> and named from the same naming space >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes. The terms client layer and server layer are >>>>> reminescences to be corrected. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - So what's a "server layer network" in this context? >>> Perhaps you >>>>>>> mean OE or "(overlay) provider layer"? >>>>>> >>>>>> IB>> It is the layer where the UNT (Underlay Network >>>>> Topology) exists >>>>>> IB>> (which may be in the same, lower or higher layer >>>>> network than of >>>>>> IB>> the ONT) >>>>>> >>>>>> Again correct >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - For OC, I'd thing referring back to a CE in the VPN >>> context, and >>>>>>> likewise to a PE for an OE, is helpful context. >>>>>> IB>> agree >>>>>> >>>>>> In the case of the interface we generally define the ONI as >>>>> an overlay interface that in a particular case is called UNI. >>>>> I would apply the same method: those nodes are called Overlay >>>>> Customer and Overlay Edge and in the particular case of >>> VPNs they are >>>>> the CE and PE respectively. What about that? >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - As you mention in the Appendix, (from the OC perspective) >>>>> there is >>>>>>> no difference between a virtual and real node >>>>>> IB>> Agree >>>>>> >>>>>> (and presumably link as >>>>>>> well). Given this and your comment in 8, that the ONI >>> can take the >>>>>>> form of a UNI or include both signaling and routing (i.e., a >>>>>>> peer/I-NNI or >>>>>>> E-NNI) what value is there in introducing the ONI term? >>>>> Said another >>>>>>> way, there's no specific term for the interface between a >>> CE and PE >>>>>>> in L3VPNs, so why do we need to introduce one in this context? >>>>>> >>>>>> We gave a name to the UNI, why don't giving to the ONI? >>>>>> >>>>>> IB>> As long as it allows for both or either signaling >>>>> and/or routing >>>>>> IB>> exchanges >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think this same comment probably holds for the O-NNI >>>>> (e.g., what's >>>>>>> the name of the interface between providers which support L3VPN >>>>>>> handoffs?)... >>>>>> >>>>>> I would suggest giving a name to that interface also in >>>>> order to distinguish between an "internal" and an "external" >>>>> link when multiple overlay provider network domains are present. >>>>>> >>>>>> IB>> I like "access links" and "inter-domain links" better. >>>>> Note also that a "link" and "node" are TE topology concepts and >>>>> orthogonal to CP interfaces (which are Signaling/Routing >speakers). >>>>> If you mean by "internal" and "external" links the CP >connectivity, >>>>> than I agree with you. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Much thanks, >>>>>>> Lou >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 12/17/2012 6:17 AM, Daniele Ceccarelli wrote: >>>>>>>> Dear CCAMPers, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In the last weeks several off-line discussions on the >>>>>>> Overlay model framework and related works took place. Some >>>>>>> discussions led to some sort of agreemet among a small group of >>>>>>> people, some others to a set a viable options, some others >>>>> to totally >>>>>>> open issues. I tried to summarize the output of such >discussions >>>>>>> below so to progress the discussions into a single thread >>>>> on the WG ML. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please note that the aim of this mail is not to present a >>>>>>> well shaped and conclusive idea to the WG but rather to >>> provide the >>>>>>> basis for starting a discussion from a barely shaped idea >>> (step 1) >>>>>>> instead of starting it from scratch (step 0). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In addition you can find attached a slide depicting a >>>>>>> proposal of the overlay scenario. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> Daniele >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> + Disclaimer: >>>>>>>> 1. Packet opto integration is often considered but the work >>>>>>> can be extented to any type of SC. Eg. TDM over LSC. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> + Terminology: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1. Virtual Link: A virtual link is a potential path between >>>>>>> two virtual or real network elements in a client layer >>>>> network that >>>>>>> is maintained/controlled in and by the server domain >>> control plane >>>>>>> (and as such cannot transport any traffic/data and >protected from >>>>>>> being >>>>>>> de-provisioned) and which can be instantiated in the data >>>>> plane (and >>>>>>> then can carry/transport/forward traffic/data) preserving >>>>> previously >>>>>>> advertised attributes such as fate sharing information. >>>>>>>> 2. Virtual Node: Virtual node is a collection of zero or >>>>>>> more server network domain nodes that are collectively >>> represented >>>>>>> to the clients as a single node that exists in the client layer >>>>>>> network and is capable of terminating of access, >inter-domain and >>>>>>> virtual links. >>>>>>>> 3.Virtual Topology: Virtual topology is a collection of one >>>>>>> or more virtual or real server network domain nodes that >>>>> exist in the >>>>>>> client layer network and are interconnected via 0 or >more virtual >>>>>>> links. >>>>>>>> 4. Overlay topology: is a superset of virtual topologies >>>>>>> provided by each of server network domains, access and >>> inter-domain >>>>>>> links. >>>>>>>> 5. Access Link: Link between OC and OE. GMPLS runs on that >>>>>>> link. It can support any of the SCs supported by the GMPLS. >>>>>>>> 6. Overlay Customer (OC): Something like the CN in RFC4208 >>>>>>> teminology but (i) receiving virtual topology from the >>>>> core network >>>>>>> and requesting the set up of one of them or (ii) requesting the >>>>>>> computation and establishment of a path accordingly to gien >>>>>>> constraints in the core network and receiving the parameters >>>>>>> characterizing such path. (ii) == UNI. >>>>>>>> 7. Overlay Edge (OE): Something like the EN in RFC4208 but >>>>>>> able to deal with (i) and (ii) above. >>>>>>>> 8. ONI : Overlay network interface: Interface allowing for >>>>>>> signaling and routing messages exchange between Overlay >and Core >>>>>>> network. Routing information consists on virtual topology >>>>>>> advertisement. When there is no routing adjacency across the >>>>>>> interface it is equivalent to the GMPLS UNI defined in 4208. >>>>>>> Signaling messages are compliant with RFC4208. Information >>>>> related to >>>>>>> path carachteristics, e.g. TE-metrics, collected SRLG, >path delay >>>>>>> etc, either passed from OE to OC via signaling after the LSP >>>>>>> establishment in the core network or from OC to OE to be >>>>> used as path >>>>>>> computation constraints, fall under the definition of >>>>> signaling info >>>>>>> and not routing info). >>>>>>>> 9. O-NNI (name to be found,maybe reused): Interface on the >>>>>>> links between different core networks in the overlay model >>>>>>> environment, i.e. Between border OEs. Same features of the >>>>> ONI apply >>>>>>> to this interface. Could it be an E-NNI? A ONI? A new name >>>>> is needed? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> + Statements >>>>>>>> 1. In the context of overlay model we are aiming to build >>>>>>> an overlay >>>>>>>> topology for the client network domains 2. The overlay >>>>>>> topology is comprised of: >>>>>>>> a) access links (links connecting client NEs to the >>>>>>> server network domains). They can be PSC or LSC. >>>>>>>> b) inter-domain links (links interconnecting server >>>>>>> network domains) >>>>>>>> c) virtual topology provided by the server network >>>>>>> domains. Virtual Links + Virtual Nodes (TBD) + >>> Connectivity Matrix >>>>>>> (with a set of parameters e.g. SRLG, optical impairments, >>> delay etc >>>>>>> for each entry) describing connectivity between access >links and >>>>>>> virtual links. >>>>>>>> 3. In the context of overlay model we manage hierarchy >>>>> of overlay >>>>>>>> topologies with overlay/underlay relationships 4. In the >>>>> context of >>>>>>>> overlay model multi-layering and inter-layer relationships >>>>>>> are peripheral at best, it is all about horizontal network >>>>>>> integration 5. The overlay model assumes one instance for >>>>> the client >>>>>>> network and a separate instance for the server network and >>>>> in the ONI >>>>>>> case the server network also surreptitiously >participates in the >>>>>>> client network by injecting virtual topology >information into it. >>>>>>>> 6. L1VPN (and LxVPN) in general is a service provided over >>>>>>> the ONI (it falls under the UNI case as no routing >>> adjacency is in >>>>>>> place between OC and OE). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> + Open issues/questions >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1. PCE-PCEP - do we need to include considerations about >>>>>>> PCE and PCEP into the overlay framework context? >>>>>>>> 2. BGP-LS needs to be considered 3. Should potentials be >>>>>>>> included? E.g. I2RS? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> + Appendix: >>>>>>>> Some notes on the Virtual Node: >>>>>>>> 1. Virtual Link Model along, sadly, does not scale >>>>>>> because of N**2 problem. IP over ATM and single-segment PWs >>>>> have the >>>>>>> same issue, that's why people invented multi-segment PWs >>>>>>>> 2. The only way to avoid full-mesh of Virtual Links is >>>>>>> by having intermediate nodes interconnecting Virtual >Links in the >>>>>>> middle of the virtual topology >>>>>>>> 3. These intermediate nodes cannot be real server >>>>>>> domain switches, because, generally speaking: >>>>>>>> a)Real switches belong to different layer network; >>>>>>>> b)Real switches are named from different naming space >>>>>>>> c)real switches individually may not have sufficient >>>>>>> resources to terminate virtual links (while a group of real >>>>> switches >>>>>>> collectively will have) >>>>>>>> d)Presenting a group of real switches as a single virtual >>>>>>> node have better scalability qualities >>>>>>>> 4. Even if you map a virtual node on a single real >>>>>>> node, you need to keep in mind that real server domain >>>>> switches are, >>>>>>> generally speaking, blocking switches and as such must >>> expose their >>>>>>> connectivity matrices >>>>>>>> 5. If you want to compute SRLG-disjoint paths that >>>>>>> could potentially go through a real server domain switch, the >>>>>>> latter's connectivity matrix must expose "internal" >>> SRLGs, so that >>>>>>> the two services traversing the switch will not >>> simultaneously fail >>>>>>> if a single internal element shared by the services fails >>>>>>>> 6. If you walk through all cases that need to be >>>>>>> addressed when you are traffic engineering topologies >>> with blocking >>>>>>> switches, you will understand that there is absolutely no >>>>> difference >>>>>>> between a virtual node and real blocking real node. >>>>>>>> 7. Even in case of pure VL model, client NEs connected >>>>>>> to server network domain must be upgraded so that they could >>>>>>> understand the connectivity matrices advertised by the >>> border nodes >>>>>>> describing connectivity constraints between access links >>>>> and virtual >>>>>>> links they terminate. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> =================================== >>>>>>>> DANIELE CECCARELLI >>>>>>>> System & Technology - PDU Optical & Metro >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Via E.Melen, 77 >>>>>>>> Genova, Italy >>>>>>>> Phone +390106002512 >>>>>>>> Mobile +393346725750 >>>>>>>> daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com >>>>>>>> www.ericsson.com >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This Communication is Confidential. We only send and receive >>>>>>> email on >>>>>>>> the basis of the term set out at >>> www.ericsson.com/email_disclaimer >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> CCAMP mailing list >>>>>>>> CCAMP@ietf.org >>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> CCAMP mailing list >>>>>> CCAMP@ietf.org >>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> CCAMP mailing list >>>>> CCAMP@ietf.org >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Gert Grammel
- [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Gert Grammel
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Gert Grammel
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Igor Bryskin
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Daniele Ceccarelli
- [CCAMP] R: Overlay model framework and context BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] R: Overlay model framework and context Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] R: R: Overlay model framework and context BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] R: Overlay model framework and context Daniele Ceccarelli
- [CCAMP] R: R: Overlay model framework and context BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Igor Bryskin
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Igor Bryskin
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Lou Berger
- [CCAMP] 答复: Overlay model framework and context Fatai Zhang
- [CCAMP] 答复: R: R: Overlay model framework and con… Fatai Zhang
- [CCAMP] R: Overlay model framework and context BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] R: R: Overlay model framework and con… Igor Bryskin
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Igor Bryskin
- [CCAMP] R: R: R: Overlay model framework and cont… BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)
- Re: [CCAMP] R: R: Overlay model framework and con… Igor Bryskin
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Snigdho Bardalai
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Igor Bryskin
- Re: [CCAMP] R: R: Overlay model framework and con… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] R: R: Overlay model framework and con… Igor Bryskin
- Re: [CCAMP] R: R: Overlay model framework and con… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] R: R: Overlay model framework and con… Igor Bryskin
- Re: [CCAMP] R: R: Overlay model framework and con… John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] R: R: Overlay model framework and con… Igor Bryskin
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Snigdho Bardalai
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Igor Bryskin
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Snigdho Bardalai
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Igor Bryskin
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Snigdho Bardalai
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Igor Bryskin
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Snigdho Bardalai
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Snigdho Bardalai
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Snigdho Bardalai
- [CCAMP] R: R: R: Overlay model framework and cont… BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Igor Bryskin
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Snigdho Bardalai
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Igor Bryskin
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Iftekhar Hussain
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Iftekhar Hussain
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Iftekhar Hussain
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Gert Grammel
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Snigdho Bardalai
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Igor Bryskin
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Snigdho Bardalai
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Gert Grammel
- Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context Daniele Ceccarelli