Re: [CCAMP] Overlay model framework and context

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Thu, 20 December 2012 16:00 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
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 B32E421F8920 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 08:00:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -99.196
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.196 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.120, BAYES_00=-2.599, CN_BODY_35=0.339, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, J_CHICKENPOX_110=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_55=0.6, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 xU0hivLlVGdJ for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 08:00:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oproxy8-pub.bluehost.com (oproxy8-pub.bluehost.com [69.89.22.20]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 0CDFD21F892F for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 08:00:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 8548 invoked by uid 0); 20 Dec 2012 16:00:01 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box313.bluehost.com) (69.89.31.113) by oproxy8.bluehost.com with SMTP; 20 Dec 2012 16:00:01 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:CC:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=4NYrjUw1ta0QeBhCylaCEg57593mvEyYLzpUgG7M0bs=; b=U7sQslXzLgo00DI76cH/qHLS0xKWKtivMQfRe8dTWXr2ohTXRlPrDqaV7vBkQANQ02YEf1LshlXa39Y+Digk4GDeKXdh0bLYmxyNz5bgo/FsGYdDNu/b3+Q/t/NKy6/n;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:45411 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1TliXR-0001BI-45; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 09:00:01 -0700
Message-ID: <50D33600.5090406@labn.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 11:00:00 -0500
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>
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> <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE48045BBA@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE48045BBA@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=GB2312
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net}
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 16:00:24 -0000

Think of it this way.  Are the overlays we're talking about here any
different from the other overlays being talked about at the IETF?  (See
threads in MPLS or NVO3, for example.)

(a) If yes, then we should probably figure out how they differ, and
ensure are terminology is aligned with this 'uniqueness'.

(b) If no, then we should be using the terminology already in use in the
broader discussion or be prepared to drive the terminology into the
wider discussion.  -- I personally have no problem with the latter if
the existing terminology really is insufficient.

Whether intended or not, your mail pointed out to me that we're in
situation (b).  Do you disagree?

Lou

On 12/20/2012 10:51 AM, Daniele Ceccarelli wrote:
> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>