Re: Last Call: Routing Extensions in Support of Generalized MPLS vto Proposed Standard
Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net> Mon, 30 June 2003 10:40 UTC
Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com
Delivery-date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 10:44:17 +0000
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 03:40:48 -0700
From: Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>
To: Jonathan Sadler <jonathan.sadler@tellabs.com>
cc: iesg@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last Call: Routing Extensions in Support of Generalized MPLS vto Proposed Standard
Message-ID: <20030630033022.C32724@kummer.juniper.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Hi Jonathan, On Sun, 23 Feb 2003, Jonathan Sadler wrote: > Please consider the following comments on these drafts: > draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-routing-05.txt > draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-09.txt > Many of the comments are based on implementation experience. These comments are > marked with a (*). > > Jonathan Sadler > > ========== > > 1. In section 4.4.2 of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-routing-05.txt, the operations for > Packet Switch Capable (PSC) are defined. Reference is made to Minimum LSP bandwidth > for SDH encoding. None of the examples in section 5 of > draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-routing-05.txt show how this field should filled. Is the suggestion that Min LSP bw be removed for PSC? > 2. The mechanism for showing relationships between server and client layers is not > generalized*. Specifically: I've incorporated most of Stephen Shew's text on layer relations almost as is. Most of the specific comments you have should really be addressed (IMO) to a document on routing for SONET/SDH (such as draft-mannie-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-isis[ospf]-00.txt). Please review the new text, and let us know if there are issues to be addressed by *this* document. > 3. Layer specific attributes are not supported*. Specifically: > - It is not possible to have a link with different costs at > different layers (ex. VC-11, VC-4, VC4-4c). ... > - Many attributes discussed actually refer to a specific layer*. ... > - Combining layer specific attributes with layer relationships can > provide a more efficient encoding mechanism than requiring > separate link announcements per layer*. ... > 4. The "TDM" Interface Switching Capability presumably includes > layers other than SONET/SDH, such as PDH* (DS1, DS3, E1, E3) and > G.709. The interaction with these layers needs to be defined. ... > 5. In many cases, 8 levels of priority are not necessary*. A more > compact encoding that has a bitfield stating the priority levels > being announced would reduce the size of the announcement. Do you have specific text that you think falls under the realm of the overall functional spec (as opposed to layer-specific docs)? Thanks, Kireeti.
- FW: Last Call: Routing Extensions in Support of G… Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
- Re: Last Call: Routing Extensions in Support of G… Jonathan Sadler
- Last Call: Routing Extensions in Support of Gener… The IESG
- RE: Last Call: Routing Extensions in Support of G… Stephen Shew
- RE: Last Call: Routing Extensions in Support of G… Kireeti Kompella
- RE: Last Call: Routing Extensions in Support of G… Stephen Shew
- Re: Last Call: Routing Extensions in Support of G… Kireeti Kompella
- RE: Last Call: Routing Extensions in Support of G… Kireeti Kompella
- Re: Last Call: Routing Extensions in Support of G… Yangguang Xu
- RE: Last Call: Routing Extensions in Support of G… Stephen Shew
- Re: Last Call: Routing Extensions in Support of G… Kireeti Kompella
- Re: Last Call: Routing Extensions in Support of G… Kireeti Kompella
- Re: Last Call: Routing Extensions in Support of G… Kireeti Kompella
- Re: Last Call: Routing Extensions in Support of G… Kohei Shiomoto
- Re: Last Call: Routing Extensions in Support of G… Dimitri.Papadimitriou
- Re: Last Call: Routing Extensions in Support of G… Kireeti Kompella
- Re: Last Call: Routing Extensions in Support of G… Dimitri.Papadimitriou
- Re: Last Call: Routing Extensions in Support of G… Jonathan Sadler
- Re: Last Call: Routing Extensions in Support of G… Kireeti Kompella