RE: Layer 2 Switching Caps LSPs

[[e-mail]]

sharam, the draft does not propose a specific data plane switching processing, but allows distinction of a mode where the whole flow traversing an interface (port mode) is retrieved at the outgoing interface from a mode allowing tracking of multiple flows traversing the same interface and the most obvious one was the use of the VLAN ID value as it implicitly determines the mapping with the data plane - but as i said clarifications are to be added here because this term did generate some confusion - note also that this draft does not discuss any specific ethernet frame processing

Shahram Davari <[e-mail]>
01/28/2005 08:07 PST

To: "'Adrian Farrel'" <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
cc: Dimitri PAPADIMITRIOU/BE/ALCATEL@ALCATEL
bcc:
Subject: RE: Layer 2 Switching Caps LSPs

Dimitri,

Could you please clarify this question.

Thanks,
Shahram

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 3:30 PM
> To: Shahram Davari; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Layer 2 Switching Caps LSPs
>
>
> Hi,
>
> The authors of the draft might like to clarify for the list
> exactly what
> data plane operations they are suggesting. To me it seems
> possible that
> the draft is proposing VLAN ID *swapping*. But an alternative
> is that the
> VLAN ID is used as a label, but that the same label is used
> for the full
> length of the LSP.
>
> Adrian
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Shahram Davari" <[e-mail]>
> To: "'Adrian Farrel'" <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 9:25 PM
> Subject: RE: Layer 2 Switching Caps LSPs
>
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > The only issue that I have is with VLAN switching. Since
> VLAN switching
> > is not a standard 802.1Q behavior, it can't be used with existing
> Ethernet
> > hardware. Therefore the scope of this draft is not limited to
> control-plane,
> > and requires new data-plane that is not defined in IEEE yet.
> >
> > If the VLAN switching is removed from the draft, I support
> accepting it
> as
> > a WG draft.
> >
> > Yours,
> > -Shahram
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]On
> > > Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
> > > Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2005 6:46 AM
> > > To: [e-mail]
> > > Subject: Layer 2 Switching Caps LSPs
> > >
> > >
> > > All,
> > >
> > > There is a draft
> > > (draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-gmpls-l2sc-lsp-03.txt) that we
> > > have discussed at several of the more recent CCAMP
> meetings, and have
> > > decided that the subject is within scope for our charter.
> > >
> > > The questions we have faced have been:
> > > - is the problem well enough articulated?
> > > - is this the solution that the WG wants to pursue?
> > > - is there a high enough level of interest in this work?
> > >
> > > If the answer to all three questions is "yes" then we can
> > > adopt the draft
> > > as a WG document and move forwards.
> > >
> > > Note: I think there are a large number of minor issues to
> > > clear up with
> > > this draft, but hopefully this is orthogonal to whether we
> > > make this a WG
> > > draft or not.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Adrian
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>