IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Question on draft-shiomoto-ccamp-gmpls-addressing-00.txt

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Tue, 08 March 2005 14:25 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 JAA26518 for <ccamp-archive@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Mar 2005 09:25:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] ident=mailnull) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1D8fgX-0005Rt-NY for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2005 09:27:49 -0500
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.44 (FreeBSD)) id 1D8fVj-000Myi-Lu for ccamp-data@psg.com; Tue, 08 Mar 2005 14:16:35 +0000
Received: from [62.241.162.31] (helo=galaxy.systems.pipex.net) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.44 (FreeBSD)) id 1D8fVi-000MyT-Ix for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2005 14:16:34 +0000
Received: from dnni.com (81-178-2-190.dsl.pipex.com [81.178.2.190]) by galaxy.systems.pipex.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 441A8E0001B2; Tue, 8 Mar 2005 14:16:24 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from Puppy ([130.129.133.164] RDNS failed) by dnni.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Tue, 8 Mar 2005 14:11:57 +0000
Message-ID: <01b601c523e9$0152c180$a4858182@Puppy>
Reply-To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: benjamin.niven-jenkins@bt.com, ccamp@ops.ietf.org
References: <B1F38D7B53615140BCEA6677DF9F2F8C06AD6004@i2km11-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net>
Subject: Re: Question on draft-shiomoto-ccamp-gmpls-addressing-00.txt
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 14:12:54 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Mar 2005 14:11:57.0375 (UTC) FILETIME=[C9BA6CF0:01C523E8]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.1 (2004-10-22) on psg.com
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.0.1
Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi,

Ben summarized...

> Thanks for the explanation.  If I understand correctly what you are
> saying is that the best current practice is to use an OOB control plane
> for the non-PSC  layer networks and an in-band control plane for the
> PSC layer networks.

If that is the intention of the authors of this draft, they will have to
fight me :-)

I do not see why an in-band control channel for a PSC network would be
made a RECOMMEND, SHOULD or MUST.

>  So one must avoid using the control plane network (of a non-PSC
> layer network) for the transfer of data (or control) plane packets from
> the PSC layer network's control & data planes.

Yes. But more precisely, one must avoid using the control channels for
data traffic. Even in-band control channel may use a different address
space, and those addresses must not be used for data.

Cheers,
Adrian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email