Re: Comments on draft-li-ccamp-multinodes-gr-proc-00.txt,
Dan Li <danli@huawei.com> Sat, 30 September 2006 05:49 UTC
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GTXik-0008TI-9m for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 30 Sep 2006 01:49:06 -0400
Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GTXid-0005kd-ND for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 30 Sep 2006 01:49:06 -0400
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.60 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org>) id 1GTXc1-000C6Q-68 for ccamp-data@psg.com; Sat, 30 Sep 2006 05:42:09 +0000
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.1 (2006-03-10) on psg.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, RCVD_IN_WHOIS_INVALID autolearn=no version=3.1.1
Received: from [61.144.161.55] (helo=szxga03-in.huawei.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.60 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <danli@huawei.com>) id 1GTXbz-000C69-5N; Sat, 30 Sep 2006 05:42:07 +0000
Received: from huawei.com (szxga03-in [172.24.2.9]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.25 (built Mar 3 2004)) with ESMTP id <0J6E007WW5OPDC@szxga03-in.huawei.com>; Sat, 30 Sep 2006 13:53:13 +0800 (CST)
Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.1.18]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.25 (built Mar 3 2004)) with ESMTP id <0J6E004VJ5OOXR@szxga03-in.huawei.com>; Sat, 30 Sep 2006 13:53:13 +0800 (CST)
Received: from l37133 ([10.70.76.208]) by szxml03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.25 (built Mar 3 2004)) with ESMTPA id <0J6E004BI5F2J2@szxml03-in.huawei.com>; Sat, 30 Sep 2006 13:47:27 +0800 (CST)
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 13:42:01 +0800
From: Dan Li <danli@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: Comments on draft-li-ccamp-multinodes-gr-proc-00.txt,
To: Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be
Cc: ccamp <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>, Olufemi Komolafe <femi@dcs.gla.ac.uk>, gjhhit@huawei.com, owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Message-id: <00fa01c6e453$271390d0$d04c460a@china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409
Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-priority: Normal
References: <OF8B07ED77.4A516AE9-ONC12571F5.005C6EC9-C12571F5.005C8EFA@netfr.alcatel.fr>
Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7da5a831c477fb6ef97f379a05fb683c
Hi Dimitri, There is nothing wrong with the GR draft, the mechanism described in that draft doesn't need any remedial patch, and it is applied to this draft. The reason we started working on this draft is try to clarify the control plane procedures for a GMPLS network when there are multiple node failures, and describes how full control plane state can be recovered depending on the order in which the nodes restart. Thanks, Dan ----- Original Message ----- From: <Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be> To: "Dan Li" <danli@huawei.com> Cc: "ccamp" <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>; "Olufemi Komolafe" <femi@dcs.gla.ac.uk>; <gjhhit@huawei.com>; <owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 12:50 AM Subject: Re: Comments on draft-li-ccamp-multinodes-gr-proc-00.txt, > hi dan > > yes i have a very practical issue - the document would then deal with > remedial to remedial - ... but do we have any feedback on initial > remedials ? > > thanks, > - d. > > > > > > Dan Li <danli@huawei.com> > Sent by: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org > 25/09/2006 09:27 > > To: Olufemi Komolafe <femi@dcs.gla.ac.uk>, gjhhit@huawei.com > cc: ccamp <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> > Subject: Re: Comments on > draft-li-ccamp-multinodes-gr-proc-00.txt, > > > Hi Femi, > > Thanks for your valuable suggestion! > > The intention for this draft is clarify the procedures for multi-nodes > restart, so five typical scenarios have been listed in the draft, I think > most of the failed cases are covered by these five scenarios. As you have > pointed out, these scenarios may be raised due to multiple nodes fail, or > a subsequent control channel failure. Yes, you're right! It may be more > generic to classify these scenarios, such as: "What should happen if a > restarting node fails to get a RecoveryPath/Path message from its > downstream/upstream neighbor?", but I think it may be more clear to > address the specific cases in the draft at least during the initial stage. > > Any comments are very welcome! > > Best regards, > > Dan > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Olufemi Komolafe > To: danli@huawei.com ; gjhhit@huawei.com > Cc: ccamp > Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 8:45 PM > Subject: RE: Comments on draft-li-ccamp-multinodes-gr-proc-00.txt, > > > Hi, > > While reading this draft it occurred to me that perhaps it might be more > useful to approach this topic from the perspective of "What can go wrong > during graceful restart, what are the consequences and how can it be > fixed?" rather than focusing on the narrower topic of multiple > simultaneous nodal faults. > > For example, Scenario 1 in the draft may be interpreted as "What should > happen if a (non-ingress) restarting node fails to get a RecoveryPath > message from its downstream neighbour?", Scenario 2 is "What should happen > if a (non-ingress) restarting node fails to get a Path message from its > upstream neighbour?" and so on. Whether each of these scenarios arises > due to multiple simultaneous nodal faults (as in the draft) or any other > reason (e.g. a subsequent control channel failure, restarting node being > inundated with messages etc.) is, in my opinion, secondary. I think the > key thing is to identify the potential problems and suggest appropriate > remedial actions, where the authors think existing documentation is > insufficient, rather than focusing on 5 different permutations of multiple > node graceful restart. > > Regards, > Femi > > > > > > From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Zafar Ali (zali) > Sent: 10 July 2006 04:04 > To: danli@huawei.com; gjhhit@huawei.com > Cc: ccamp > Subject: Comments on draft-li-ccamp-multinodes-gr-proc-00.txt, > > Dear Authors, > > This is Deja-vu to me.... > > Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-restart-ext-05.txt actually had a section on > multiple node restart case and was rejected by the WG as addressing > multiple node restart case is NOT a goal (suffers from the law of > diminishing return). In other words the following statement in the ID- > > "[GR-EXT] also extends the Hello message to exchange information about > the ability to support the RecoveryPath message. > The examples and procedures in [GR-EXT] focus on the description of a > single node restart when adjacent network nodes are operative. > Although the procedures are equally applicable to multi-node restarts, > no detailed explanation is provided." > > is not accurate. Please see section 4 on the earlier version of the > [GR-EXT], > http://www.faqs.org/ftp/pub/internet-drafts/draft-rahman-ccamp-rsvp-restart-extensions-00.txt > . > > Thanks > > Regards... Zafar > > > > > > Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 05:44:05 +0000 Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 13:42:01 +0800 From: Dan Li <danli@huawei.com> Subject: Re: Comments on draft-li-ccamp-multinodes-gr-proc-00.txt, To: Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be Cc: ccamp <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>, Olufemi Komolafe <femi@dcs.gla.ac.uk>, gjhhit@huawei.com, owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Message-id: <00fa01c6e453$271390d0$d04c460a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Hi Dimitri, There is nothing wrong with the GR draft, the mechanism described in that draft doesn't need any remedial patch, and it is applied to this draft. The reason we started working on this draft is try to clarify the control plane procedures for a GMPLS network when there are multiple node failures, and describes how full control plane state can be recovered depending on the order in which the nodes restart. Thanks, Dan ----- Original Message ----- From: <Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be> To: "Dan Li" <danli@huawei.com> Cc: "ccamp" <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>; "Olufemi Komolafe" <femi@dcs.gla.ac.uk>; <gjhhit@huawei.com>; <owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 12:50 AM Subject: Re: Comments on draft-li-ccamp-multinodes-gr-proc-00.txt, > hi dan > > yes i have a very practical issue - the document would then deal with > remedial to remedial - ... but do we have any feedback on initial > remedials ? > > thanks, > - d. > > > > > > Dan Li <danli@huawei.com> > Sent by: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org > 25/09/2006 09:27 > > To: Olufemi Komolafe <femi@dcs.gla.ac.uk>, gjhhit@huawei.com > cc: ccamp <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> > Subject: Re: Comments on > draft-li-ccamp-multinodes-gr-proc-00.txt, > > > Hi Femi, > > Thanks for your valuable suggestion! > > The intention for this draft is clarify the procedures for multi-nodes > restart, so five typical scenarios have been listed in the draft, I think > most of the failed cases are covered by these five scenarios. As you have > pointed out, these scenarios may be raised due to multiple nodes fail, or > a subsequent control channel failure. Yes, you're right! It may be more > generic to classify these scenarios, such as: "What should happen if a > restarting node fails to get a RecoveryPath/Path message from its > downstream/upstream neighbor?", but I think it may be more clear to > address the specific cases in the draft at least during the initial stage. > > Any comments are very welcome! > > Best regards, > > Dan > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Olufemi Komolafe > To: danli@huawei.com ; gjhhit@huawei.com > Cc: ccamp > Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 8:45 PM > Subject: RE: Comments on draft-li-ccamp-multinodes-gr-proc-00.txt, > > > Hi, > > While reading this draft it occurred to me that perhaps it might be more > useful to approach this topic from the perspective of "What can go wrong > during graceful restart, what are the consequences and how can it be > fixed?" rather than focusing on the narrower topic of multiple > simultaneous nodal faults. > > For example, Scenario 1 in the draft may be interpreted as "What should > happen if a (non-ingress) restarting node fails to get a RecoveryPath > message from its downstream neighbour?", Scenario 2 is "What should happen > if a (non-ingress) restarting node fails to get a Path message from its > upstream neighbour?" and so on. Whether each of these scenarios arises > due to multiple simultaneous nodal faults (as in the draft) or any other > reason (e.g. a subsequent control channel failure, restarting node being > inundated with messages etc.) is, in my opinion, secondary. I think the > key thing is to identify the potential problems and suggest appropriate > remedial actions, where the authors think existing documentation is > insufficient, rather than focusing on 5 different permutations of multiple > node graceful restart. > > Regards, > Femi > > > > > > From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Zafar Ali (zali) > Sent: 10 July 2006 04:04 > To: danli@huawei.com; gjhhit@huawei.com > Cc: ccamp > Subject: Comments on draft-li-ccamp-multinodes-gr-proc-00.txt, > > Dear Authors, > > This is Deja-vu to me.... > > Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-restart-ext-05.txt actually had a section on > multiple node restart case and was rejected by the WG as addressing > multiple node restart case is NOT a goal (suffers from the law of > diminishing return). In other words the following statement in the ID- > > "[GR-EXT] also extends the Hello message to exchange information about > the ability to support the RecoveryPath message. > The examples and procedures in [GR-EXT] focus on the description of a > single node restart when adjacent network nodes are operative. > Although the procedures are equally applicable to multi-node restarts, > no detailed explanation is provided." > > is not accurate. Please see section 4 on the earlier version of the > [GR-EXT], > http://www.faqs.org/ftp/pub/internet-drafts/draft-rahman-ccamp-rsvp-restart-extensions-00.txt > . > > Thanks > > Regards... Zafar > > > > > > Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 11:02:46 +0000 Message-ID: <027a01c6e2ed$4acaa980$0a23fea9@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> To: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Subject: Fw: New Liaison Statement, "Response to liaisons on G.8110.1" Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 11:59:41 +0100 Organization: Old Dog Consulting MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="utf-8"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, Please see the liaison tracker for a response from the ITU-T on T-MPLS. This liaison includes some text on the motivations for T-MPLS and starts to build a picture of what the T-MPLS control plane might be expected to do. Adrian ----- Original Message ----- From: "Greg Jones (ITU-T SG 15)" <tsbsg15@itu.int> To: <loa@pi.se>; <sob@harvard.edu>; <stbryant@cisco.com>; <adrian@olddog.co.uk>; <danny@arbor.net>; <swallow@cisco.com> Cc: <iesg@ietf.org>; <iab@ietf.org>; <sjtrowbridge@lucent.com>; <betts01@nortel.com>; <maeda@ansl.ntt.co.jp>; <ghani.abbas@marconi.com>; <houlin.zhao@itu.int>; <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>; <mpls@lists.ietf.org>; <pwe3@ietf.org>; <tsbsg15@itu.int>; <greg.jones@itu.int>; <betts01@nortel.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 4:35 PM Subject: New Liaison Statement, "Response to liaisons on G.8110.1" > > Title: Response to liaisons on G.8110.1 > Submission Date: 2006-09-27 > URL of the IETF Web page: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/liaison_detail.cgi?detail_id=265 > Please reply by 2006-10-30 > > From: Greg Jones(ITU-T SG 15) <tsbsg15@itu.int> > To: IETF(loa@pi.se, sob@harvard.edu, stbryant@cisco.com, > adrian@olddog.co.uk, danny@arbor.net, swallow@cisco.com) > Cc: iesg@ietf.org > iab@ietf.org > sjtrowbridge@lucent.com > betts01@nortel.com > maeda@ansl.ntt.co.jp > ghani.abbas@marconi.com > houlin.zhao@itu.int > ccamp@ops.ietf.org > mpls@lists.ietf.org > pwe3@ietf.org > Reponse Contact: tsbsg15@itu.int > greg.jones@itu.int > Technical Contact: betts01@nortel.com > Purpose: For comment > Body: > Attachment(s): > Response to liaisons on G.8110.1 - body text > (https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/file367.doc) Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 23:16:17 +0000 Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 16:14:57 -0700 Message-Id: <200609262314.k8QNEvVL024784@nit.isi.edu> To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org Subject: RFC 4631 on Link Management Protocol (LMP) Management Information Base (MIB) From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, ccamp@ops.ietf.org A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 4631 Title: Link Management Protocol (LMP) Management Information Base (MIB) Author: M. Dubuc, T. Nadeau, J. Lang, E. McGinnis, A. Farrel Status: Standards Track Date: September 2006 Mailbox: dubuc.consulting@sympatico.ca, tnadeau@cisco.com, jplang@ieee.org, emcginnis@hammerheadsystems.com, adrian@olddog.co.uk Pages: 83 Characters: 152560 Obsoletes: RFC4327 See-Also: I-D Tag: draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc4327bis-01.txt URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4631.txt This document provides minor corrections to and obsoletes RFC 4327. This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. In particular, it describes managed objects for modeling the Link Management Protocol (LMP). [STANDARDS TRACK] This document is a product of the Common Control and Measurement Plane Working Group of the IETF. This is now a Proposed Standard Protocol. STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community,and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.Please refer to the current edition of the Internet Official Protocol Standards (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF list and the RFC-DIST list. Requests to be added to or deleted from the IETF distribution list should be sent to IETF-REQUEST@IETF.ORG. Requests to be added to or deleted from the RFC-DIST distribution list should be sent to RFC-DIST-REQUEST@RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Details on obtaining RFCs via FTP or EMAIL may be obtained by sending an EMAIL message to rfc-info@RFC-EDITOR.ORG with the message body help: ways_to_get_rfcs. For example: To: rfc-info@RFC-EDITOR.ORG Subject: getting rfcs help: ways_to_get_rfcs Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to RFC-Manager@RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. Submissions for Requests for Comments should be sent to RFC-EDITOR@RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Please consult RFC 2223, Instructions to RFC Authors, for further information. Joyce K. Reynolds and Sandy Ginoza USC/Information Sciences Institute ... Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 16:52:22 +0000 To: Dan Li <danli@huawei.com> Cc: ccamp <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>, Olufemi Komolafe <femi@dcs.gla.ac.uk>, gjhhit@huawei.com, owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: Comments on draft-li-ccamp-multinodes-gr-proc-00.txt, MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <OF8B07ED77.4A516AE9-ONC12571F5.005C6EC9-C12571F5.005C8EFA@netfr.alcatel.fr> From: Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 18:50:54 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" hi dan yes i have a very practical issue - the document would then deal with remedial to remedial - ... but do we have any feedback on initial remedials ? thanks, - d. Dan Li <danli@huawei.com> Sent by: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org 25/09/2006 09:27 To: Olufemi Komolafe <femi@dcs.gla.ac.uk>, gjhhit@huawei.com cc: ccamp <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Subject: Re: Comments on draft-li-ccamp-multinodes-gr-proc-00.txt, Hi Femi, Thanks for your valuable suggestion! The intention for this draft is clarify the procedures for multi-nodes restart, so five typical scenarios have been listed in the draft, I think most of the failed cases are covered by these five scenarios. As you have pointed out, these scenarios may be raised due to multiple nodes fail, or a subsequent control channel failure. Yes, you're right! It may be more generic to classify these scenarios, such as: "What should happen if a restarting node fails to get a RecoveryPath/Path message from its downstream/upstream neighbor?", but I think it may be more clear to address the specific cases in the draft at least during the initial stage. Any comments are very welcome! Best regards, Dan ----- Original Message ----- From: Olufemi Komolafe To: danli@huawei.com ; gjhhit@huawei.com Cc: ccamp Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 8:45 PM Subject: RE: Comments on draft-li-ccamp-multinodes-gr-proc-00.txt, Hi, While reading this draft it occurred to me that perhaps it might be more useful to approach this topic from the perspective of "What can go wrong during graceful restart, what are the consequences and how can it be fixed?" rather than focusing on the narrower topic of multiple simultaneous nodal faults. For example, Scenario 1 in the draft may be interpreted as "What should happen if a (non-ingress) restarting node fails to get a RecoveryPath message from its downstream neighbour?", Scenario 2 is "What should happen if a (non-ingress) restarting node fails to get a Path message from its upstream neighbour?" and so on. Whether each of these scenarios arises due to multiple simultaneous nodal faults (as in the draft) or any other reason (e.g. a subsequent control channel failure, restarting node being inundated with messages etc.) is, in my opinion, secondary. I think the key thing is to identify the potential problems and suggest appropriate remedial actions, where the authors think existing documentation is insufficient, rather than focusing on 5 different permutations of multiple node graceful restart. Regards, Femi From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Zafar Ali (zali) Sent: 10 July 2006 04:04 To: danli@huawei.com; gjhhit@huawei.com Cc: ccamp Subject: Comments on draft-li-ccamp-multinodes-gr-proc-00.txt, Dear Authors, This is Deja-vu to me.... Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-restart-ext-05.txt actually had a section on multiple node restart case and was rejected by the WG as addressing multiple node restart case is NOT a goal (suffers from the law of diminishing return). In other words the following statement in the ID- "[GR-EXT] also extends the Hello message to exchange information about the ability to support the RecoveryPath message. The examples and procedures in [GR-EXT] focus on the description of a single node restart when adjacent network nodes are operative. Although the procedures are equally applicable to multi-node restarts, no detailed explanation is provided." is not accurate. Please see section 4 on the earlier version of the [GR-EXT], http://www.faqs.org/ftp/pub/internet-drafts/draft-rahman-ccamp-rsvp-restart-extensions-00.txt . Thanks Regards... Zafar Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 15:51:00 +0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; b=ZeuzTK0fKQIXWbe/ybDW3J6NpzJLR9D9z0PCUVmX04B7+TVPJoTrTEZLpmzAA30bAYQ2F10C2p1PzLYgEhE2nJMKZ4Zih/LMrFF4l0q95sJ5ik8FVxpSdOl83a4ZABfLxyW44JAWfDg5K+NfLVWNhq5F2GB/HsON7pVmNg+TvxU= Message-ID: <406e32c00609260849j3ab0d64o46f133b1905387be@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 11:49:12 -0400 From: "Peng He" <peng.he.2000@gmail.com> To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: A New I.D.: A Novel Framework for Inter-area MPLS Optimal Routing MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Dear all, We just published a new Internet Draft: A Novel Framework for Inter-area MPLS Optimal Routing (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-he-ccamp-optimal-routing-00.txt). Our general motive is to try to build up a framework for MPLS (even GMPLS possibly) inter-area TE, which can satisfy the inter-area TE requirements defined in RFC 4105. Please note that our framework in the draft can achieve inter-area MPLS optimal routing with good backward compatibility; and, it is different with PCE-based approaches. Any comments are very welcomed! Best Regards, Peng He PS: The following is publishing information of the draft: A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > > > Title : A Novel Framework for Inter-area MPLS Optimal Routing > Author(s) : P. He, G. Bochmann > Filename : draft-he-ccamp-optimal-routing-00.txt > Pages : 16 > Date : 2006-9-25 > > We propose a novel framework for inter-area MPLS optimal routing. The > key to our proposal lies in deploying an overlaid star optical > network in the OSPF backbone area and introducing the concept of > ""virtual area border routers"" (v-ABRs). Compared with other > proposals, our framework can provide globally optimized inter-area > routing and has very good compatibility to existing traditional > IP/MPLS routers. > > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-he-ccamp-optimal-routing-00.txt > > To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to > i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of > the message. > You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce > to change your subscription settings. > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the > username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After > logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then > "get draft-he-ccamp-optimal-routing-00.txt". > > A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in > http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html > or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > > Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. > > Send a message to: > mailserv@ietf.org. > In the body type: > "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-he-ccamp-optimal-routing-00.txt". > > NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in > MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this > feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" > command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or > a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers > exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with > "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split > up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on > how to manipulate these messages. > > Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader > implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the > Internet-Draft. > Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 07:29:51 +0000 Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 15:27:29 +0800 From: Dan Li <danli@huawei.com> Subject: Re: Comments on draft-li-ccamp-multinodes-gr-proc-00.txt, To: Olufemi Komolafe <femi@dcs.gla.ac.uk>, gjhhit@huawei.com Cc: ccamp <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Message-id: <00ee01c6e074$0ed0f040$d04c460a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Hi Femi, Thanks for your valuable suggestion! The intention for this draft is clarify the procedures for multi-nodes restart, so five typical scenarios have been listed in the draft, I think most of the failed cases are covered by these five scenarios. As you have pointed out, these scenarios may be raised due to multiple nodes fail, or a subsequent control channel failure. Yes, you're right! It may be more generic to classify these scenarios, such as: "What should happen if a restarting node fails to get a RecoveryPath/Path message from its downstream/upstream neighbor?", but I think it may be more clear to address the specific cases in the draft at least during the initial stage. Any comments are very welcome! Best regards, Dan ----- Original Message ----- From: Olufemi Komolafe To: danli@huawei.com ; gjhhit@huawei.com Cc: ccamp Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 8:45 PM Subject: RE: Comments on draft-li-ccamp-multinodes-gr-proc-00.txt, Hi, While reading this draft it occurred to me that perhaps it might be more useful to approach this topic from the perspective of "What can go wrong during graceful restart, what are the consequences and how can it be fixed?" rather than focusing on the narrower topic of multiple simultaneous nodal faults. For example, Scenario 1 in the draft may be interpreted as "What should happen if a (non-ingress) restarting node fails to get a RecoveryPath message from its downstream neighbour?", Scenario 2 is "What should happen if a (non-ingress) restarting node fails to get a Path message from its upstream neighbour?" and so on. Whether each of these scenarios arises due to multiple simultaneous nodal faults (as in the draft) or any other reason (e.g. a subsequent control channel failure, restarting node being inundated with messages etc.) is, in my opinion, secondary. I think the key thing is to identify the potential problems and suggest appropriate remedial actions, where the authors think existing documentation is insufficient, rather than focusing on 5 different permutations of multiple node graceful restart. Regards, Femi From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Zafar Ali (zali) Sent: 10 July 2006 04:04 To: danli@huawei.com; gjhhit@huawei.com Cc: ccamp Subject: Comments on draft-li-ccamp-multinodes-gr-proc-00.txt, Dear Authors, This is Deja-vu to me.... Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-restart-ext-05.txt actually had a section on multiple node restart case and was rejected by the WG as addressing multiple node restart case is NOT a goal (suffers from the law of diminishing return). In other words the following statement in the ID- "[GR-EXT] also extends the Hello message to exchange information about the ability to support the RecoveryPath message. The examples and procedures in [GR-EXT] focus on the description of a single node restart when adjacent network nodes are operative. Although the procedures are equally applicable to multi-node restarts, no detailed explanation is provided." is not accurate. Please see section 4 on the earlier version of the [GR-EXT], http://www.faqs.org/ftp/pub/internet-drafts/draft-rahman-ccamp-rsvp-restart-extensions-00.txt. Thanks Regards... Zafar Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 14:25:06 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C6DE52.CBE16254" Subject: question on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-e2e-signaling Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 15:24:21 +0100 Message-ID: <52A0FF47062B0B4C80862F2526E02409D6F22F@enfimail2.datcon.co.uk> Thread-Topic: question on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-e2e-signaling Thread-Index: AcbeUsv260Z4fGWJTmy31BkUFKv7vg== From: "Alan Davey" <Alan.Davey@dataconnection.com> To: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C6DE52.CBE16254 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi =20 I have a question about the use of end-to-end recovery signaling in conjunction with graceful restart following nodal faults. =20 Is it expected that the end-to-end recovery signaling protocol will handle the restart of either of the ingress or egress nodes during switchover or reversion processing, where that node implements graceful restart mechanisms as described in RFC3473? =20 If so then what is the effect on, for example, the end-to-end switchover request/response procedure of one of the end-nodes restarting? =20 Thanks in advance =20 Alan =20 ------------------------------------ Alan Davey Data Connection Ltd Tel: +44 20 8366 1177 Fax: +44 20 8363 1039 Email: Alan.Davey@dataconnection.com Web: http://www.dataconnection.com <http://www.dataconnection.com/>=20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C6DE52.CBE16254 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; = charset=3Dus-ascii"> <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2963" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20 class=3D070351413-22092006>Hi</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20 class=3D070351413-22092006></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN class=3D070351413-22092006>I have = a question=20 about the use of end-to-end recovery signaling in conjunction with = graceful=20 restart following nodal faults.</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20 class=3D070351413-22092006></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN class=3D070351413-22092006>Is it = expected that=20 the end-to-end recovery signaling protocol will handle the restart of = either of=20 the ingress or egress nodes during switchover or reversion processing, = where=20 that node implements graceful restart mechanisms as described in=20 RFC3473?</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20 class=3D070351413-22092006></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN class=3D070351413-22092006>If so = then what is=20 the effect on, for example, the end-to-end switchover request/response = procedure=20 of one of the end-nodes restarting?</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20 class=3D070351413-22092006></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN class=3D070351413-22092006>Thanks = in=20 advance</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20 class=3D070351413-22092006></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20 class=3D070351413-22092006>Alan</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20 class=3D070351413-22092006></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN class=3D070351413-22092006> <DIV align=3Dleft><FONT face=3DFixedsys=20 size=3D2>------------------------------------</FONT></DIV> <DIV align=3Dleft><FONT face=3DFixedsys size=3D2>Alan Davey</FONT></DIV> <DIV align=3Dleft><FONT face=3DFixedsys size=3D2>Data Connection = Ltd</FONT></DIV> <DIV align=3Dleft><FONT face=3DFixedsys size=3D2>Tel: +44 20 = 8366=20 1177</FONT></DIV> <DIV align=3Dleft><FONT face=3DFixedsys size=3D2>Fax: +44 20 = 8363=20 1039</FONT></DIV> <DIV align=3Dleft><FONT face=3DFixedsys size=3D2>Email: <A=20 href=3D"mailto:Alan.Davey@dataconnection.com">Alan.Davey@dataconnection.c= om</A></FONT></DIV> <DIV align=3Dleft><FONT face=3DFixedsys size=3D2>Web: <A=20 href=3D"http://www.dataconnection.com/">http://www.dataconnection.com</A>= </FONT></DIV></SPAN></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C6DE52.CBE16254-- Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 13:24:46 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-54-235550940 Message-Id: <F39C2571-30DE-4F4E-A4A5-7A09BF2C1826@cisco.com> Cc: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>, "Ross Callon" <rcallon@juniper.net>, <rtg-dir@cisco.com> From: JP Vasseur <jvasseur@cisco.com> Subject: Re: Routing Directorate comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-automesh-01 Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 09:22:57 -0400 To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; l=52628; t=1158931387; x=1159795387; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim7002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=jvasseur@cisco.com; z=From:JP=20Vasseur=20<jvasseur@cisco.com> |Subject:Re=3A=20Routing=20Directorate=20comments=20on=20draft-ietf-ccamp-automes h-01; X=v=3Dcisco.com=3B=20h=3DuG5NUr9tkIvBpzVKn0luCin5Z/4=3D; b=R0Nuf+Nxd1FrQlOyHNrimk3GgvgHddaO5u1NaqsYVjc9C+I/Deam5Qn4FEnJSTG+xm3mDWuH smO8mu+qjv5zdok+Ptn0doCc1Cn4o6LN2WluXno2gO1VLlCAi/Rsn2qQ; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-7.cisco.com; header.From=jvasseur@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( 29 extraneous bytes; sig from cisco.com verified; ); --Apple-Mail-54-235550940 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Hi Adrian, On Sep 21, 2006, at 12:48 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > Hi JP, > > Thanks for addressing the comments. I have forwarded these to the > Routing Directorate and copied them on this email to let them > respond if they want. OK > But here are my comments: > in line, >>> 1) The Tail-end name field facilitates LSP identification. Is this >>> a new form of LSP identification? >>> If it is not new, then there should be a reference to RFC3209 and a >>> statement of which RFC3209 fields are mapped to this IGP field. >>> If it is not new then there is a significant concern that a new >>> identification is being introduced when it is not needed. >> >> As indicated in the document the string refers to a "Tail-end" name, >> not an TE LSP name: thus it does not replace the session name of the >> SESSION-ATTRIBUTE object defined in RFC3209. > > Hmmm, yes it is not an LSP name, but recall that the LSP is > identified by a combination of Session and Sender Template, and > that the Session includes the destination IP address. In Section > 3.2 I see: > - A Tail-end name: string used to ease the TE-LSP naming. > and in Section 4.1: > - A Tail-end name: a variable length field used to facilitate the TE > LSP identification. Ah I see your point now. Just bad wording, it should have read " The idea is not to use that field for LSP identification per say but to ease the management, troubleshooting, ... For example, an implementation could form the session name based on the strings on these fields. A Tail-end name: name of the Tail-end LSR. + see below > > These definitions seem to imply that the tail-end name is used as > an identifier for the LSP. The question that will be asked is: How > does this identification of an LSP differ from the conventional > identification of the LSP? Given that you also have: > - A Tail-end address: an IPv4 or IPv6 IP address to be used as a > tail-end TE LSP address by other LSRs belonging to the same mesh- > group > it appears that the tail-name is superfluous information. > Well having the name definitely helps for management, troubleshooting, ... > So, perhaps the name is present for diagnostic purposes? Perhaps it > is there to ease OAM? But it does not seem to play any role in the > protocol procedures as it is not explicitly mentioned later in the > I-D (e.g. Section 5). > OK let me try to clarify adding the following text then: The aim of the Tail-end address field is to provide a way to quickly identify the tail-end LSR originating the TE-MESH-GROUP and could be used for various purposes such such troubleshooting, management and so on. It does not interfere by any mean with the TE LSP attributes used to identify a TE LSP. Does that clarify ? > How would a node behave if it received a mesh group advertisement > that indicated a tail-end address that did not appear to match its > record of the tail-end name? > >>> 2) The document mentions that the number of mesh groups is limited >>> but potentially (depending on encoding) provides for binary >>> encoding for 2^32-1 groups (although this might be constrained by >>> OSPF's limit of a TLV size to 2^16 bytes. >>> The document (and the authors) state that scaling of these >>> extensions is not an issue because only a small number of mesh >>> groups are likely to be in existence in a network, and any one >>> router is unlikely to participate in more than a very few. >>> There are two concerns: >>> a) Whenever we say that something in the Internet is limited, >>> history usually proves us wrong. >> >> And that's undoubtedly a good news :-) >> >>> Indeed, there is already a >>> proposal (draft-leroux-mpls-p2mp-te-autoleaf-01.txt) that uses a >>> similar mechanism for a problem that would have far more groups. >> >> Two comments: >> - Mesh groups are used to set up TE LSP meshes. If we consider let >> say 10 meshes comprising 100 routers each, that gives us 99,000 TE >> LSPs. One can easily see that the number of meshes is unlikely to >> explode in a foreseeable future. If it turns out to be the case, >> we'll have other scalability issues to fix before any potential with >> the IGP. > > What about 100 meshes comprising 10 routers each? Note that would still be very reasonable ;-) > I make that only 9,000 TE LSPs. > > So clearly the scaling of MPLS-TE is not directly related to the > scaling of automesh. > Well you see my point ... since these extensions are used to set up TE LSPs, in the vast majority of the realistic cases you'll end up with scalability concerns with RSVP before seeing any IGP scalability issue. > What this comes down to is your statement about how automesh will > be used. I think we can all accept that this is the problem space > that you intend to deploy in, and that is great. But the original > point from the Routing Directorate was that there is nothing in the > I-D that imposes this restriction. So how can we say that the > protocol extensions will scale? And that is true with pretty much every protocol: one could always come up with a scenario where a bad usage of the protocol or a broken implementation may be a concern. Anyway, let me try to propose some text to close on this: OLD: It is expected that the number of mesh-groups be very limited (to at most 10 or so). Moreover, TE mesh-group membership should not change frequently: each time an LSR joins or leaves a new TE mesh-group. NEW: The aim of the IGP extensions proposed in this document is to ease the provisioning of TE meshes, the number of which is generally very limited (10 at most or so), and should stay of this order of magnitude at least in a foreseeable future. Furthermore, such TE meshes are not expected to change frequently and thus the TE mesh- group membership is likely to be very stable (each time an LSR joins or leaves a new TE mesh-group, which is a not a frequent). An implementation SHOULD support mechanisms to control the frequency at which an LSR joins/leaves a particular a TE mesh group. Does that address your concern ? > >> - More importantly, the dynamics of joining a TE mesh is such that >> IGP updates are used to advertise to TE mesh group membership change >> (join or prune), which are indeed expected to be very unfrequent. > > Again, the concern raised is that the problem space you intend to > deploy in is, indeed, limited in this way. All good. But how can we > say whether the protocol extensions will be used differently in the > future? What controls are there over constructing a mesh where > joins and prunes are frequent? > >>> b) The I-D does not itself impose any reasonable limits on the >>> number of groups with the potential for a single router (by >>> misconfiguration, design, or malice) advertising a very large >>> number of groups. >>> Thus, it appears that the scaling concerns are not properly >>> addressed in this I-D. >> >> Not sure to see the point here. If indeed, a large number of TE MESH >> GROUPs were advertised, this would not impact the other LSRs since >> they would not create any new TE LSPs trying to join the new TE-MESH- >> GROUP. In term of amount of flooded information, this should not be a >> concern either (handled by routing). We clarified this in the >> security section. > > The impact on the other LSRs is exactly flooding question. Covering > that in the security section is fine for the misconfiguration and > malice cases. > >>> 3) The document mentions that "The TE-MESH-GROUP TLV is OPTIONAL >>> and must at most appear once in a OSPF Router Information LSA or >>> ISIS Router Capability TLV." but for addition/removal it mentions >>> "conversely, if the LSR leaves a mesh-group the corresponding entry >>> will be removed from the TE-MESH-GROUP TLV." >>> What are these "entries" referring to - that there is a top-level >>> TE-MESH-GROUP TLV with multiple sub-TLVs (but the document mentions >>> "No sub-TLV is currently defined for the TE-mesh-group TLV") ? >>> >>> AF>> My comment on this is that the definition of the TLVs seems >>> AF>> unclear. >>> AF>> From figure 2, it appears that some additional information >>> can be >>> AF>> present in the TLV after the fields listed, and (reading >>> AF>> between the lines) it would appear that this additional >>> AF>> information is a series of repeats of the set of fields to >>> AF>> define multiple mesh groups. >>> AF>> This could usefully be clarified considerably. >> >> >> You're absolutely right. The figures have been modified: >> >> (example show below): > > [SNIP] > Looks good to me. > >>> AF>> But it is now unclear to me whether a single router can be a >>> AF>> member of IPv4 an IPv6 mesh groups. It would seem that >>> AF>> these cannot be mixed within a single TLV, and multiple >>> AF>> TLVs (one IPv4 and one IPv6) are prohibited. >> >> OK the text requires some clarification. What is prohibited is to >> have two IPv4 sub-TLV or two IPv6 sub-TLV but one of each is >> permitted. New proposed text to clarify: >> >> The TE-MESH-GROUP TLV is OPTIONAL and at most one IPv4 instance and >> one IPv6 instance MUST appear in a OSPF Router Information LSA or >> ISIS Router Capability TLV. If the OSPF TE-MESH-GROUP TLV (IPv4 or >> IPv6) occurs more than once within the OSPF Router Information LSA, >> only the first instance is processed, subsequent TLV(s) will be >> silently ignored. Similarly, If the ISIS TE-MESH-GROUP sub-TLV (IPv4 >> or IPv6) occurs more than once within the ISIS Router capability TLV, >> only the first instance is processed, subsequent TLV(s) will be >> silently ignored. > > OK. That's fine. > I think you want to make a couple of changes: > - "at most one instance MUST appear" is ambiguous since it will > be confused with "an instance MUST appear". I suggest you > reword as "MUST NOT include more than one of each of" > - "If the OSPF TE-MESH-GROUP TLV (IPv4 or IPv6) occurs > more than once" should really be phrased as "If the either the > IPv4 or IPv6 OSPF TE-MESH-GROUP TLV occurs more > than once". Ditto for the IS-IS sub-TLV. > - Two instances of "will be silently ignored" should read "SHOULD > be silently ignored" Fixed, thanks ! > >>> 4) Small terminology issue in section 5.1 it says: "Note that both >>> operations can be performed in the context of a single refresh." >>> This is not a refresh. It is a trigger/update. A better term for >>> OSPF would be "LSA origination". >> >> OK fixed (I used the term "Update"), thanks. > > OK > >>> 5) Please state the applicability to OSPF v2 and or v3. Note that >>> the Router_Cap document covers both v2 and v3 >> >> Indeed, Thanks for the comments. The OSPFv3 aspects have been >> incorporated. Here is the new text: > > [SNIP] > OK > >>> 6) The term "fairly static" at the end of section 5.1 is >>> meaningless without some relative context. >>> Presumably this relates to the number times an LSR joins or leaves >>> a mesh group over time. >>> Is it intended to be relative to the IGP refresh period? >>> Please clarify in an objective rather than a subjective way. >> >> >> Right, this requires clarification. Here is the new text: Moreover, >> TE mesh-group membership should not change frequently: each time an >> LSR joins or leaves a new TE mesh-group. > > I could live with this, personally. We'll see whether we get any > more comments. > I think the nub will be: > 1. whether your "should not" can be "SHOULD NOT" > 2. what does "frequently mean"? > 3. what is there in this I-D to say that an LSR does not join/leave a > TE mesh-group very often? > Hopefully I clarified with the text above. >> I guess that this is sufficiently explicit: it is a well-known fact >> that LSRs are infrequently added or removed to a TE mesh. > > :-) Very well known. In fact, my mother was commenting on it to me > only the other day ;-) > ah so she should talk to my kids then ... we can work this out ;-))) > Consider the case where PE membership of an automesh is dependent > on whether there are C-nodes subscribed to some service. > > Perhaps this well known fact could be noted in the Introduction to > this I-D which is AFAIK the only IETF document on the subject of > automesh. OK, see the proposed text, and let me know what you think, I do think that this is sufficient but let me know. > >>> 7) The security section (section 8) is inadequate and will >>> undoubtedly be rejected by the security ADs. At the very least, the >>> I-D needs a paragraph (i.e. more than one or two lines) explaining >>> why there are no new security considerations. But what would be the >>> impact of adding false mesh groups to a TLV? Is there anything >>> (dangerous) that can be learned about the network by inspecting >>> mesh group TLVs? >> >> The following section has been added: > > [SNIP] > OK. Let's run with that and see how much we get beaten up by the > Security experts. OK, thanks. cheers, JP. > > Cheers, > Adrian --Apple-Mail-54-235550940 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 <HTML><BODY style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space; = -khtml-line-break: after-white-space; ">Hi Adrian,<DIV><BR><DIV><DIV>On = Sep 21, 2006, at 12:48 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:</DIV><BR = class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite"><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; ">Hi JP,</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; = margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: = 14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Thanks for addressing the = comments. I have forwarded these to the Routing Directorate and copied = them on this email to let them respond if they want. = <BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR = class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>OK</DIV><BR><BLOCKQUOTE = type=3D"cite"><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">But here are my = comments:</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; = "><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR = class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>in = line,</DIV><BR><BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite"><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; = margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: = 14px; "></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite"><BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite"><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; ">1) The Tail-end name field facilitates LSP = identification. Is this</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; = margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">a new form of = LSP identification?</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: = 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">If it is not new, then = there should be a reference to RFC3209 and a</DIV><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; ">statement of which RFC3209 fields are mapped to this = IGP field.</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">If it is not new then there is a = significant concern that a new</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; = margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; = ">identification is being introduced when it is not needed.</DIV> = </BLOCKQUOTE><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; ">As indicated in the document the string refers to a = "Tail-end" name,</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">not an TE LSP name: thus it does = not replace the session name of the</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; = margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; = ">SESSION-ATTRIBUTE object defined in RFC3209.</DIV> </BLOCKQUOTE><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: = 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Hmmm, = yes it is not an LSP name, but recall that the LSP is identified by a = combination of Session and Sender Template, and that the Session = includes the destination IP address. In Section 3.2 I see:</DIV><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; "><SPAN class=3D"Apple-converted-space">=A0 </SPAN>- A = Tail-end name: string used to ease the TE-LSP naming.</DIV><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; ">and in Section 4.1:</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: = 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><SPAN = class=3D"Apple-converted-space">=A0 </SPAN>- A Tail-end name: a variable = length field used to facilitate the TE</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: = 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><SPAN = class=3D"Apple-converted-space">=A0 </SPAN>LSP = identification.</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR = class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>Ah I see your point now. = Just bad wording, it should have read "</DIV>The idea is not to use that = field for LSP identification per say but to ease the management, = troubleshooting, ...</DIV><DIV>For example, an implementation could form = the session name based on the strings on these fields.</DIV><DIV><BR = class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV><I>A Tail-end name: name of = the Tail-end LSR.</I></DIV><DIV><BR = class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>+ see = below</DIV><DIV><BR><BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite"><DIV style=3D"margin-top: = 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; = min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; = margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">These = definitions seem to imply that the tail-end name is used as an = identifier for the LSP. The question that will be asked is: How does = this identification of an LSP differ from the conventional = identification of the LSP?<SPAN class=3D"Apple-converted-space">=A0 = </SPAN>Given that you also have:</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; = margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><SPAN = class=3D"Apple-converted-space">=A0 </SPAN>- A Tail-end address: an IPv4 = or IPv6 IP address to be used as a</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; = margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><SPAN = class=3D"Apple-converted-space">=A0 </SPAN>tail-end TE LSP address by = other LSRs belonging to the same mesh-</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: = 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><SPAN = class=3D"Apple-converted-space">=A0 </SPAN>group</DIV><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; ">it appears that the tail-name is superfluous = information.</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; = "><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR = class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>Well having the name = definitely helps for management, troubleshooting, = ...</DIV><BR><BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite"><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; = margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: = 14px; "></DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">So, perhaps the name is present = for diagnostic purposes? Perhaps it is there to ease OAM? But it does = not seem to play any role in the protocol procedures as it is not = explicitly mentioned later in the I-D (e.g. Section 5).</DIV><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR = class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>OK let me try to clarify = adding the following text then:</DIV><DIV><BR = class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV><I>The aim of the Tail-end = address field is to provide a way to quickly identify the tail-end LSR = originating the TE-MESH-GROUP and could be used for various purposes = such such troubleshooting, management and so on. It does not interfere = by any mean with the TE LSP attributes used to identify a TE = LSP.</I></DIV><DIV><BR class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>Does = that clarify ?</DIV><BR><BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite"><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "></DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: = 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">How = would a node behave if it received a mesh group advertisement that = indicated a tail-end address that did not appear to match its record of = the tail-end name?</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: = 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; = "><BR></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite"><BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite"><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; ">2) The document mentions that the number of mesh = groups is limited</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">but potentially (depending on = encoding) provides for binary</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; = margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">encoding for = 2^32-1 groups (although this might be constrained by</DIV><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; ">OSPF's limit of a TLV size to 2^16 bytes.</DIV><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; ">The document (and the authors) state that scaling of = these</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">extensions is not an issue = because only a small number of mesh</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; = margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">groups are = likely to be in existence in a network, and any one</DIV><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; ">router is unlikely to participate in more than a = very few.</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">There are two = concerns:</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">a) Whenever we say that = something in the Internet is limited,</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: = 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">history = usually proves us wrong.</DIV> </BLOCKQUOTE><DIV style=3D"margin-top: = 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; = min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; = margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">And that's = undoubtedly a good news :-)</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; = margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: = 14px; "><BR></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite"><DIV style=3D"margin-top: = 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Indeed, = there is already a</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: = 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">proposal = (draft-leroux-mpls-p2mp-te-autoleaf-01.txt) that uses a</DIV><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; ">similar mechanism for a problem that would have far = more groups.</DIV> </BLOCKQUOTE><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; = margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: = 14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Two comments:</DIV><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; ">- Mesh groups are used to set up TE LSP meshes. If = we consider let</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">say 10 meshes comprising 100 = routers each, that gives us 99,000 TE</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: = 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">LSPs. = One can easily see that the number of meshes is unlikely to</DIV><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; ">explode in a foreseeable future. If it turns out to = be the case,</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">we'll have other scalability = issues to fix before any potential with</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: = 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">the = IGP.</DIV> </BLOCKQUOTE><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: = 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; = "><BR></DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">What about 100 meshes comprising = 10 routers each?</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR = class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>Note that would still be = very reasonable ;-)</DIV><BR><BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite"><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; ">I make that only 9,000 TE LSPs.</DIV><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: = 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">So = clearly the scaling of MPLS-TE is not directly related to the scaling of = automesh.</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; = "><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR = class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>Well you see my point ... = since these extensions are used to set up TE LSPs, in the vast majority = of the realistic cases you'll end up with scalability concerns with RSVP = before seeing any IGP scalability issue.</DIV><BR><BLOCKQUOTE = type=3D"cite"><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "></DIV><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; ">What this comes down to is your statement about how = automesh will be used. I think we can all accept that this is the = problem space that you intend to deploy in, and that is great. But the = original point from the Routing Directorate was that there is nothing in = the I-D that imposes this restriction. So how can we say that the = protocol extensions will scale?</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR = class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>And that is true with = pretty much every protocol: one could always come up with a scenario = where a bad usage of the protocol or a broken implementation may be a = concern. Anyway, let me try to propose some text to close on = this:</DIV><DIV><BR = class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>OLD:</DIV><DIV><BR = class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>It is expected that the = number of mesh-groups be very limited (to at most 10 or = so).=A0</DIV><DIV>Moreover, TE mesh-group membership should not change = frequently: each time an LSR joins or leaves a new TE = mesh-group.</DIV><DIV><BR = class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>NEW:</DIV><DIV>The aim of = the IGP extensions proposed in this document is to ease the provisioning = of TE meshes, the number of which is generally very limited (10 at most = or so), and should stay of this order of magnitude at least in = a=A0foreseeable future. Furthermore, such TE meshes are not expected to = change frequently and thus the TE mesh-group membership is likely to be = very stable (each time an LSR joins or leaves a new TE mesh-group, which = is a not a frequent). An implementation SHOULD support=A0mechanisms to = control the frequency at which an LSR joins/leaves a particular a TE = mesh group.</DIV><DIV><BR class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV>Does = that address your concern ?</DIV><DIV><BR><BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite"><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE = type=3D"cite"><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">- More importantly, the dynamics = of joining a TE mesh is such that</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; = margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">IGP updates = are used to advertise to TE mesh group membership change</DIV><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; ">(join or prune), which are indeed expected to be = very unfrequent.</DIV> </BLOCKQUOTE><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; = margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: = 14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Again, the concern raised is = that the problem space you intend to deploy in is, indeed, limited in = this way. All good. But how can we say whether the protocol extensions = will be used differently in the future? What controls are there over = constructing a mesh where joins and prunes are frequent?</DIV><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE = type=3D"cite"><BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite"><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; = margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">b) The I-D = does not itself impose any reasonable limits on the</DIV><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; ">number of groups with the potential for a single = router (by</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">misconfiguration, design, or = malice) advertising a very large</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; = margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">number of = groups.</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Thus, it appears that the = scaling concerns are not properly</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; = margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">addressed in = this I-D.</DIV> </BLOCKQUOTE><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; = margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: = 14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Not sure to see the point here. = If indeed, a large number of TE MESH</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; = margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">GROUPs were = advertised, this would not impact the other LSRs since</DIV><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; ">they would not create any new TE LSPs trying to join = the new TE-MESH-</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">GROUP. In term of amount of = flooded information, this should not be a</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: = 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">concern = either (handled by routing). We clarified this in the</DIV><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; ">security section.</DIV> </BLOCKQUOTE><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: = 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">The = impact on the other LSRs is exactly flooding question. Covering that in = the security section is fine for the misconfiguration and malice = cases.</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV> = <BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite"><BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite"><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; ">3) The document mentions that "The TE-MESH-GROUP TLV = is OPTIONAL</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">and must at most appear once in = a OSPF Router Information LSA or</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; = margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">ISIS Router = Capability TLV." but for addition/removal it mentions</DIV><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; ">"conversely, if the LSR leaves a mesh-group the = corresponding entry</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: = 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">will be removed from the = TE-MESH-GROUP TLV."</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: = 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">What are these "entries" = referring to - that there is a top-level</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: = 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; = ">TE-MESH-GROUP TLV with multiple sub-TLVs (but the document = mentions</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">"No sub-TLV is currently defined = for the TE-mesh-group TLV") ?</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; = margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: = 14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">AF>> My comment on this is = that the definition of the TLVs seems</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: = 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; = ">AF>> unclear.</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: = 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">AF>> =46rom figure 2, = it appears that some additional information can be</DIV><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; ">AF>> present in the TLV after the fields = listed, and (reading</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: = 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">AF>> between the = lines) it would appear that this additional</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top:= 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; = ">AF>> information is a series of repeats of the set of fields = to</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: = 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">AF>> define multiple mesh = groups.</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">AF>> This could usefully = be clarified considerably.</DIV> </BLOCKQUOTE><DIV style=3D"margin-top: = 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; = min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; = margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: = 14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">You're absolutely right. The = figures have been modified:</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; = margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: = 14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">(example show below):</DIV> = </BLOCKQUOTE><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; ">[SNIP]</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; = margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Looks good to = me.</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV> = <BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite"><BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite"><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; ">AF>> But it is now unclear to me whether a = single router can be a</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: = 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">AF>> member of IPv4 = an IPv6 mesh groups. It would seem that</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: = 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; = ">AF>> these cannot be mixed within a single TLV, and = multiple</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">AF>> TLVs (one IPv4 and = one IPv6) are prohibited.</DIV> </BLOCKQUOTE><DIV style=3D"margin-top: = 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; = min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; = margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">OK the text = requires some clarification. What is prohibited is to</DIV><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; ">have two IPv4 sub-TLV or two IPv6 sub-TLV but one of = each is</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">permitted. New proposed text to = clarify:</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; ">The TE-MESH-GROUP TLV is OPTIONAL and at most one = IPv4 instance and</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">one IPv6 instance MUST appear in = a OSPF Router Information LSA or</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; = margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">ISIS Router = Capability TLV. If the OSPF TE-MESH-GROUP TLV (IPv4 or</DIV><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; ">IPv6) occurs more than once within the OSPF Router = Information LSA,</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">only the first instance is = processed, subsequent TLV(s) will be</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; = margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">silently = ignored. Similarly, If the ISIS TE-MESH-GROUP sub-TLV (IPv4</DIV><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; ">or IPv6) occurs more than once within the ISIS = Router capability TLV,</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: = 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">only the first instance is = processed, subsequent TLV(s) will be</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; = margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">silently = ignored.</DIV> </BLOCKQUOTE><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: = 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; = "><BR></DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">OK. That's fine.</DIV><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; ">I think you want to make a couple of = changes:</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">- "at most one instance MUST = appear" is ambiguous since it will</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; = margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><SPAN = class=3D"Apple-converted-space">=A0</SPAN>be confused with "an instance = MUST appear". I suggest you</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; = margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><SPAN = class=3D"Apple-converted-space">=A0</SPAN>reword as "MUST NOT include = more than one of each of"</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; = margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">- "If the = OSPF TE-MESH-GROUP TLV (IPv4 or IPv6) occurs</DIV><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; "><SPAN class=3D"Apple-converted-space">=A0</SPAN>more = than once" should really be phrased as "If the either the</DIV><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; "><SPAN class=3D"Apple-converted-space">=A0</SPAN>IPv4 = or IPv6 OSPF TE-MESH-GROUP TLV occurs more</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: = 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><SPAN = class=3D"Apple-converted-space">=A0</SPAN>than once".<SPAN = class=3D"Apple-converted-space">=A0 </SPAN>Ditto for the IS-IS = sub-TLV.</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">- Two instances of "will be = silently ignored" should read "SHOULD</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: = 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><SPAN = class=3D"Apple-converted-space">=A0</SPAN>be silently = ignored"</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR = class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>Fixed, thanks = !</DIV><BR><BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite"><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; = margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: = 14px; "><BR></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite"><BLOCKQUOTE = type=3D"cite"><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">4) Small terminology issue in = section 5.1 it says: "Note that both</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; = margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">operations = can be performed in the context of a single refresh."</DIV><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; ">This is not a refresh. It is a trigger/update. A = better term for</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">OSPF would be "LSA = origination".</DIV> </BLOCKQUOTE><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; = margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: = 14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">OK fixed (I used the term = "Update"), thanks.</DIV> </BLOCKQUOTE><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; = margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: = 14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">OK</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: = 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; = min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite"><BLOCKQUOTE = type=3D"cite"><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">5) Please state the = applicability to OSPF v2 and or v3. Note that</DIV><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; ">the Router_Cap document covers both v2 and v3</DIV> = </BLOCKQUOTE><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; ">Indeed, Thanks for the comments.<SPAN = class=3D"Apple-converted-space">=A0 </SPAN>The OSPFv3 aspects have = been</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">incorporated. Here is the new = text:</DIV> </BLOCKQUOTE><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: = 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; = "><BR></DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">[SNIP]</DIV><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; ">OK</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: = 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; = "><BR></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite"><BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite"><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; ">6) The term "fairly static" at the end of section = 5.1 is</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">meaningless without some = relative context.</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Presumably this relates to the = number times an LSR joins or leaves</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; = margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">a mesh group = over time.</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Is it intended to be relative to = the IGP refresh period?</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; = margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Please = clarify in an objective rather than a subjective way.</DIV> = </BLOCKQUOTE><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: = 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Right, = this requires clarification. Here is the new text: Moreover,</DIV><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; ">TE mesh-group membership should not change = frequently: each time an</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; = margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">LSR joins or = leaves a new TE mesh-group.</DIV> </BLOCKQUOTE><DIV style=3D"margin-top: = 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; = min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; = margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">I could live = with this, personally. We'll see whether we get any more = comments.</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">I think the nub will = be:</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">1. whether your "should not" can = be "SHOULD NOT"</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">2. what does "frequently = mean"?</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">3. what is there in this I-D to = say that an LSR does not join/leave a</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: = 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><SPAN = class=3D"Apple-converted-space">=A0 </SPAN>TE mesh-group very = often?</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; = "><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR = class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>Hopefully I clarified with = the text above.</DIV><BR><BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite"><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE = type=3D"cite"><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">I guess that this is = sufficiently explicit: it is a well-known fact</DIV><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; ">that LSRs are infrequently added or removed to a TE = mesh.</DIV> </BLOCKQUOTE><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: = 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; = "><BR></DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">:-) Very well known. In fact, my = mother was commenting on it to me only the other day ;-)</DIV><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR = class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>ah so she should talk to my = kids then ... we can work this out ;-)))</DIV><BR><BLOCKQUOTE = type=3D"cite"><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "></DIV><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; ">Consider the case where PE membership of an automesh = is dependent on whether there are C-nodes subscribed to some = service.</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; ">Perhaps this well known fact could be noted in the = Introduction to this I-D which is AFAIK the only IETF document on the = subject of automesh.</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR = class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>OK, see the proposed text, = and let me know what you think, I do think that this is sufficient but = let me know.</DIV><BR><BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite"><DIV style=3D"margin-top: = 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; = min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite"><BLOCKQUOTE = type=3D"cite"><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">7) The security section (section = 8) is inadequate and will</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; = margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">undoubtedly = be rejected by the security ADs. At the very least, the</DIV><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; ">I-D needs a paragraph (i.e. more than one or two = lines) explaining</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">why there are no new security = considerations. But what would be the</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: = 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">impact = of adding false mesh groups to a TLV? Is there anything</DIV><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; ">(dangerous) that can be learned about the network by = inspecting</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">mesh group TLVs?</DIV> = </BLOCKQUOTE><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; ">The following section has been added:</DIV> = </BLOCKQUOTE><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; ">[SNIP]</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; = margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">OK. Let's run = with that and see how much we get beaten up by the Security = experts.</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR = class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>OK, thanks.</DIV><DIV><BR = class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>cheers,</DIV><DIV><BR = class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>JP.</DIV><BR><BLOCKQUOTE = type=3D"cite"><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; ">Cheers,</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; = margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Adrian<SPAN = class=3D"Apple-converted-space">=A0</SPAN></DIV> = </BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></DIV></BODY></HTML>= --Apple-Mail-54-235550940-- Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 16:50:37 +0000 Message-ID: <0f3f01c6dd9d$e30e7fa0$0a23fea9@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> To: "JP Vasseur" <jvasseur@cisco.com> Cc: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>, "Ross Callon" <rcallon@juniper.net>, <rtg-dir@cisco.com> Subject: Re: Routing Directorate comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-automesh-01 Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 17:48:53 +0100 Organization: Old Dog Consulting MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi JP, Thanks for addressing the comments. I have forwarded these to the Routing Directorate and copied them on this email to let them respond if they want. But here are my comments: >> 1) The Tail-end name field facilitates LSP identification. Is this >> a new form of LSP identification? >> If it is not new, then there should be a reference to RFC3209 and a >> statement of which RFC3209 fields are mapped to this IGP field. >> If it is not new then there is a significant concern that a new >> identification is being introduced when it is not needed. > > As indicated in the document the string refers to a "Tail-end" name, > not an TE LSP name: thus it does not replace the session name of the > SESSION-ATTRIBUTE object defined in RFC3209. Hmmm, yes it is not an LSP name, but recall that the LSP is identified by a combination of Session and Sender Template, and that the Session includes the destination IP address. In Section 3.2 I see: - A Tail-end name: string used to ease the TE-LSP naming. and in Section 4.1: - A Tail-end name: a variable length field used to facilitate the TE LSP identification. These definitions seem to imply that the tail-end name is used as an identifier for the LSP. The question that will be asked is: How does this identification of an LSP differ from the conventional identification of the LSP? Given that you also have: - A Tail-end address: an IPv4 or IPv6 IP address to be used as a tail-end TE LSP address by other LSRs belonging to the same mesh- group it appears that the tail-name is superfluous information. So, perhaps the name is present for diagnostic purposes? Perhaps it is there to ease OAM? But it does not seem to play any role in the protocol procedures as it is not explicitly mentioned later in the I-D (e.g. Section 5). How would a node behave if it received a mesh group advertisement that indicated a tail-end address that did not appear to match its record of the tail-end name? >> 2) The document mentions that the number of mesh groups is limited >> but potentially (depending on encoding) provides for binary >> encoding for 2^32-1 groups (although this might be constrained by >> OSPF's limit of a TLV size to 2^16 bytes. >> The document (and the authors) state that scaling of these >> extensions is not an issue because only a small number of mesh >> groups are likely to be in existence in a network, and any one >> router is unlikely to participate in more than a very few. >> There are two concerns: >> a) Whenever we say that something in the Internet is limited, >> history usually proves us wrong. > > And that's undoubtedly a good news :-) > >> Indeed, there is already a >> proposal (draft-leroux-mpls-p2mp-te-autoleaf-01.txt) that uses a >> similar mechanism for a problem that would have far more groups. > > Two comments: >- Mesh groups are used to set up TE LSP meshes. If we consider let > say 10 meshes comprising 100 routers each, that gives us 99,000 TE > LSPs. One can easily see that the number of meshes is unlikely to > explode in a foreseeable future. If it turns out to be the case, > we'll have other scalability issues to fix before any potential with > the IGP. What about 100 meshes comprising 10 routers each? I make that only 9,000 TE LSPs. So clearly the scaling of MPLS-TE is not directly related to the scaling of automesh. What this comes down to is your statement about how automesh will be used. I think we can all accept that this is the problem space that you intend to deploy in, and that is great. But the original point from the Routing Directorate was that there is nothing in the I-D that imposes this restriction. So how can we say that the protocol extensions will scale? > - More importantly, the dynamics of joining a TE mesh is such that > IGP updates are used to advertise to TE mesh group membership change > (join or prune), which are indeed expected to be very unfrequent. Again, the concern raised is that the problem space you intend to deploy in is, indeed, limited in this way. All good. But how can we say whether the protocol extensions will be used differently in the future? What controls are there over constructing a mesh where joins and prunes are frequent? >> b) The I-D does not itself impose any reasonable limits on the >> number of groups with the potential for a single router (by >> misconfiguration, design, or malice) advertising a very large >> number of groups. >> Thus, it appears that the scaling concerns are not properly >> addressed in this I-D. > >Not sure to see the point here. If indeed, a large number of TE MESH >GROUPs were advertised, this would not impact the other LSRs since >they would not create any new TE LSPs trying to join the new TE-MESH- >GROUP. In term of amount of flooded information, this should not be a >concern either (handled by routing). We clarified this in the >security section. The impact on the other LSRs is exactly flooding question. Covering that in the security section is fine for the misconfiguration and malice cases. >> 3) The document mentions that "The TE-MESH-GROUP TLV is OPTIONAL >> and must at most appear once in a OSPF Router Information LSA or >> ISIS Router Capability TLV." but for addition/removal it mentions >> "conversely, if the LSR leaves a mesh-group the corresponding entry >> will be removed from the TE-MESH-GROUP TLV." >> What are these "entries" referring to - that there is a top-level >> TE-MESH-GROUP TLV with multiple sub-TLVs (but the document mentions >> "No sub-TLV is currently defined for the TE-mesh-group TLV") ? >> >> AF>> My comment on this is that the definition of the TLVs seems >> AF>> unclear. >> AF>> From figure 2, it appears that some additional information can be >> AF>> present in the TLV after the fields listed, and (reading >> AF>> between the lines) it would appear that this additional >> AF>> information is a series of repeats of the set of fields to >> AF>> define multiple mesh groups. >> AF>> This could usefully be clarified considerably. > > > You're absolutely right. The figures have been modified: > > (example show below): [SNIP] Looks good to me. >> AF>> But it is now unclear to me whether a single router can be a >> AF>> member of IPv4 an IPv6 mesh groups. It would seem that >> AF>> these cannot be mixed within a single TLV, and multiple >> AF>> TLVs (one IPv4 and one IPv6) are prohibited. > > OK the text requires some clarification. What is prohibited is to > have two IPv4 sub-TLV or two IPv6 sub-TLV but one of each is > permitted. New proposed text to clarify: > > The TE-MESH-GROUP TLV is OPTIONAL and at most one IPv4 instance and > one IPv6 instance MUST appear in a OSPF Router Information LSA or > ISIS Router Capability TLV. If the OSPF TE-MESH-GROUP TLV (IPv4 or > IPv6) occurs more than once within the OSPF Router Information LSA, > only the first instance is processed, subsequent TLV(s) will be > silently ignored. Similarly, If the ISIS TE-MESH-GROUP sub-TLV (IPv4 > or IPv6) occurs more than once within the ISIS Router capability TLV, > only the first instance is processed, subsequent TLV(s) will be > silently ignored. OK. That's fine. I think you want to make a couple of changes: - "at most one instance MUST appear" is ambiguous since it will be confused with "an instance MUST appear". I suggest you reword as "MUST NOT include more than one of each of" - "If the OSPF TE-MESH-GROUP TLV (IPv4 or IPv6) occurs more than once" should really be phrased as "If the either the IPv4 or IPv6 OSPF TE-MESH-GROUP TLV occurs more than once". Ditto for the IS-IS sub-TLV. - Two instances of "will be silently ignored" should read "SHOULD be silently ignored" >> 4) Small terminology issue in section 5.1 it says: "Note that both >> operations can be performed in the context of a single refresh." >> This is not a refresh. It is a trigger/update. A better term for >> OSPF would be "LSA origination". > >OK fixed (I used the term "Update"), thanks. OK >> 5) Please state the applicability to OSPF v2 and or v3. Note that >> the Router_Cap document covers both v2 and v3 > >Indeed, Thanks for the comments. The OSPFv3 aspects have been >incorporated. Here is the new text: [SNIP] OK >> 6) The term "fairly static" at the end of section 5.1 is >> meaningless without some relative context. >> Presumably this relates to the number times an LSR joins or leaves >> a mesh group over time. >> Is it intended to be relative to the IGP refresh period? >> Please clarify in an objective rather than a subjective way. > > > Right, this requires clarification. Here is the new text: Moreover, > TE mesh-group membership should not change frequently: each time an > LSR joins or leaves a new TE mesh-group. I could live with this, personally. We'll see whether we get any more comments. I think the nub will be: 1. whether your "should not" can be "SHOULD NOT" 2. what does "frequently mean"? 3. what is there in this I-D to say that an LSR does not join/leave a TE mesh-group very often? > I guess that this is sufficiently explicit: it is a well-known fact > that LSRs are infrequently added or removed to a TE mesh. :-) Very well known. In fact, my mother was commenting on it to me only the other day ;-) Consider the case where PE membership of an automesh is dependent on whether there are C-nodes subscribed to some service. Perhaps this well known fact could be noted in the Introduction to this I-D which is AFAIK the only IETF document on the subject of automesh. >> 7) The security section (section 8) is inadequate and will >> undoubtedly be rejected by the security ADs. At the very least, the >> I-D needs a paragraph (i.e. more than one or two lines) explaining >> why there are no new security considerations. But what would be the >> impact of adding false mesh groups to a TLV? Is there anything >> (dangerous) that can be learned about the network by inspecting >> mesh group TLVs? > > The following section has been added: [SNIP] OK. Let's run with that and see how much we get beaten up by the Security experts. Cheers, Adrian Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 16:11:19 +0000 Message-ID: <0f2701c6dd98$65564d40$0a23fea9@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> To: <jiang.weilian@zte.com.cn> Cc: "ccamp" <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Subject: Re: Comments on draft-li-ccamp-multinodes-gr-proc-00.txt, Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 16:55:29 +0100 Organization: Old Dog Consulting MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="GB2312"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Jiang, Yes, I read your I-D when it was published in November last year. It seems to me that you were addressing a very specific sub-case of the graceful restart problem space. If we generalise to a linear network A-B-C-D-E-F with an LSP running from A to F, your draft handles the case where all four nodes B, C, D and E fail, and C and D subsequently recover, but have retained no LSP state. You are asking the question, how do nodes C and D know to exchange Hello messages. The reasons why I limit your draft to such a narrow subset of the problem are: - If any restarting node is adjacent to a node that remained active, the active node will send a Hello message and that will engage the graceful restart procedures - If the restarting node had retained any LSP state, it would know about its neighbours and would be able to send Hello messages. This seems like a very small corner case, and we do not usually design the protocols to optimise for this type of error condition. So long as there is *a* solution, we are usually happy. That said, if this is a problem that is causing you problems in the field, we should address it. I note that your I-D has expired and I wonder what your plans are for this work. Regards, Adrian ----- Original Message ----- From: <jiang.weilian@zte.com.cn> To: "Olufemi Komolafe" <femi@dcs.gla.ac.uk> Cc: "ccamp" <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>; <danli@huawei.com>; <gjhhit@huawei.com>; <owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 3:57 AM Subject: RE: Comments on draft-li-ccamp-multinodes-gr-proc-00.txt, > Hello, everyone! > > We have put forward a mechanism to solve this problem in our > draft "draft-jian-ccamp-multinodes-rsvp-restart-00" last year. > > We think that if multiple adjacent nodes restarted nearly at > the same time, these nodes cannot learn about the GR capability > from each other. > > The key of this problem is that how restarted node actively > inform its GR(Graceful Restart) capability to neighbor nodes, > especially some neighbor nodes are restarted nodes too. > > If you concern our mechanism, please read our draft for detail. > > > > > Regard, > Jiang Weilian > ............................................... > Add: No.68 Zijinghua Rd,Yuhuatai District, > Nanjing. P.R.China. > Zip: 210012 > Tel: 0086-25-52871644 > Mail: jiang.weilian@zte.com.cn > ............................................. > > > > > > "Olufemi Komolafe" <femi@dcs.gla.ac.uk> > ·¢¼þÈË£º owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org > > 2006-09-19 20:45 > > ÊÕ¼þÈË£º <danli@huawei.com>, <gjhhit@huawei.com> > ³ËÍ£º "ccamp" <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> > Ö÷Ì⣺ RE: Comments on draft-li-ccamp-multinodes-gr-proc-00.txt, > > > Hi, > > While reading this draft it occurred to me that perhaps it might be more > useful to approach this topic from the perspective of ¡°What can go wrong > during graceful restart, what are the consequences and how can it be > fixed?¡± rather than focusing on the narrower topic of multiple > simultaneous nodal faults. > > For example, Scenario 1 in the draft may be interpreted as ¡°What should > happen if a (non-ingress) restarting node fails to get a RecoveryPath > message from its downstream neighbour?¡±, Scenario 2 is ¡°What should > happen if a (non-ingress) restarting node fails to get a Path message from > its upstream neighbour?¡± and so on. Whether each of these scenarios > arises due to multiple simultaneous nodal faults (as in the draft) or any > other reason (e.g. a subsequent control channel failure, restarting node > being inundated with messages etc.) is, in my opinion, secondary. I think > the key thing is to identify the potential problems and suggest > appropriate remedial actions, where the authors think existing > documentation is insufficient, rather than focusing on 5 different > permutations of multiple node graceful restart. > > Regards, > Femi > > > > From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Zafar Ali (zali) > Sent: 10 July 2006 04:04 > To: danli@huawei.com; gjhhit@huawei.com > Cc: ccamp > Subject: Comments on draft-li-ccamp-multinodes-gr-proc-00.txt, > > Dear Authors, > > This is Deja-vu to me.... > > Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-restart-ext-05.txt actually had a section on > multiple node restart case and was rejected by the WG as addressing > multiple node restart case is NOT a goal (suffers from the law of > diminishing return). In other words the following statement in the ID- > > "[GR-EXT] also extends the Hello message to exchange information about > the ability to support the RecoveryPath message. > The examples and procedures in [GR-EXT] focus on the description of a > single node restart when adjacent network nodes are operative. > Although the procedures are equally applicable to multi-node restarts, > no detailed explanation is provided." > > is not accurate. Please see section 4 on the earlier version of the > [GR-EXT], > http://www.faqs.org/ftp/pub/internet-drafts/draft-rahman-ccamp-rsvp-restart-extensions-00.txt > . > > Thanks > > Regards... Zafar > > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail is > solely property of the sender's organization. This mail communication is > confidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy and > are not permitted to disclose the contents of this communication to > others. > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended > solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. > If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of > the message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the > individual sender. > This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam > system. > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail is > solely property of the sender's organization. This mail communication is > confidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy and > are not permitted to disclose the contents of this communication to > others. > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended > solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. > If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of > the message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the > individual sender. > This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam > system. > Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 15:01:09 +0000 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Proposed liaison response to IEEE Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 15:59:54 +0100 Message-ID: <0536FC9B908BEC4597EE721BE6A35389188FDB9B@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net> Thread-Topic: Proposed liaison response to IEEE Thread-Index: Acbddg77yvsiJyJpTXasuZ6O4lOTMwAALwBA From: <neil.2.harrison@bt.com> To: <loa@pi.se> Cc: <gels@rtg.ietf.org>, <bwijnen@lucent.com>, <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Thanks Loa.....this sounds OK to me and I'll go with the liaison as-is. However, one point we should bear in mind and that has not been stated so far is that the VLAN field assumes a different semantic in a co-ps mode layer network (be this PBT or VLAN-XC swapping) compared to its original cl-ps mode Ethernet layer network semantic. In the co-ps mode case it is either: - part of the trail termination address in PBT that does not get swapped during forwarding, ie the trail sink term address is the combination of DMAC+VCID; - a proxy for the trail termination address in VLAN-XC (BTW - I am not clear what VLAN-XC layer network addresses are here) that could be swapped on each link-connection. AFAI understand the original IEEE intent of a VLAN was to create a restricted broadcast domain within which a certain subset of the total MAC address population reside. These are quite different semantics. So asking for clarification of what IEEE mean by (and the scope of) swapping the VLAN field would still not really be comparable to such an action in a co-ps mode layer network. regards Neil > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org > [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Loa Andersson > Sent: 21 September 2006 13:03 > Cc: gels@rtg.ietf.org; bwijnen@lucent.com; ccamp@ops.ietf.org > Subject: Re: Proposed liaison response to IEEE >=20 >=20 > All, >=20 > there have been a number of correct statements in this short thread. >=20 > Neil is right (given the layered network model) that Ethernet > is a layer network and as such connectionless and packet oriented. >=20 > Nurit is right that if you configure a VLAN on only to parts > of an Ethernet bridge the frame will go through without=20 > looking at the MAC address >=20 > Don is right that the liaison does not capture an earlier > comment he made on the gels-list. Neither does it capture a=20 > comment made by Attila. >=20 > However, if I understand what is happening here is that we > need to clarify a paragraph in the liaison form the IEEE802.1=20 > on translation of S-VIDs. >=20 > I guess that this is something we all need to understand, and > given the answer, it will be possible to follow up with=20 > further more precise questions. >=20 > If for example the answer on S-VID translation is that it is > not supported other than at domain borders, then the question=20 > on whether it needs to be done by taking the MAC-address into=20 > consideration or not will have very different meaning. >=20 > Let agree on getting the liaison out, and then decide on what > we do next depending on the answer. >=20 > /Loa >=20 > Nurit Sprecher wrote: > > Hi Neil, > > Thanks for your clarification. > > Please note that the discussion below relates to the > liaison that the > > IETF wants to send to the IEEE in order to understand the standard=20 > > behavior of the Ethernet forwarding behavior. As I > understand it, Don > > was concerned that S-VID translation does not preclude the > forwarding > > decision which is based on the MAC address. My intention > was to indicate > > that for point-to-point VLAN connection (on a link), MAC > learning is not > > required by the 802.1Qrev-5 spec and the forwarding > decision does not > > rely on the MAC address. This is not a discussion on > networking but on > > the standard behavior of the 802.1Q bridges. > > Regards, > > Nuritl. > >=20 > > ________________________________ > >=20 > > From: neil.2.harrison@bt.com [mailto:neil.2.harrison@bt.com] > > Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 13:00 > > To: Nurit Sprecher; dwfedyk@nortel.com; adrian@olddog.co.uk > > Cc: gels@rtg.ietf.org; bwijnen@lucent.com; ccamp@ops.ietf.org > > Subject: RE: Proposed liaison response to IEEE > >=20 > >=20 > > Nurit.....precision is indeed important. In a co mode > layer network > > connections can be p2p or p2mp in nature and each can be > composed of > > multiple concatenated subnetwork-connections (ie nodes in THIS layer > > network) and link-connections......noting that a single p2p > > link-connection hop between 2 bridges in a cl-ps Ethernet layer=20 > > network is NOT a connection in THAT (ie Ethernet) layer network=20 > > (though it will be supported by a trail which is provided by a=20 > > connection in some lower layer network). > > =20 > > regards, Neil > >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org > [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On > > Behalf Of Nurit Sprecher > > Sent: 21 September 2006 12:38 > > To: Don Fedyk; Adrian Farrel > > Cc: gels@rtg.ietf.org; Wijnen, Bert (Bert); > ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Nurit > > Sprecher > > Subject: RE: Proposed liaison response to IEEE > > =09 > > =09 > >=20 > > Hi, > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > I think it is a good idea to send the liaison to the > IEEE and get > > once and for all a clear statement that the s-vid translation is > > supported on each provider bridge port. > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > In addition, the IEEE has recognized that MAC learning is not > > required for point-to-point VLANs in a bridge. The 802.1Q rev-5=20 > > already includes this extension in section 8.7. > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > " The Learning Process receives the source MAC > Addresses and VIDs of > > received frames from the > >=20 > > Forwarding Process, following the application of the > ingress rules > > (8.6.2). It shall create or update a > >=20 > > Dynamic Filtering Entry (8.8.3) that specifies the > reception Port for > > the frame's source address and VID, if > >=20 > > and only if the source address is an Individual > Address, i.e., is not > > a Group Address, the resulting number of > >=20 > > entries would not exceed the capacity of the Filtering > Database, and > > the filtering utility criteria for the > >=20 > > receiving Bridge Port are met." > >=20 > > The enhanced filtering utility criteria "are satisfied > if at least > > one VLAN that uses the FID includes the reception Port and at least > > one other Port with a Port State of Learning or Forwarding in its=20 > > member set, and: a) The operPointToPointMAC parameter is=20 > false for the > > reception Port; or b) Ingress to the VLAN is permitted > through a third > > Port. NOTE -The third port can, but is not required to be in the > > member set.". > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > I think it is clearly stated, but if it is required to > ask the IEEE > > about the context of forwarding based on a destination MAC, > I suggest > > being more precise and specify that we are talking on > point-to-point > > connections. > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > Regards, > >=20 > > Nurit. > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: gels-bounces@rtg.ietf.org > [mailto:gels-bounces@rtg.ietf.org] On > > Behalf Of Don Fedyk > > Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 23:16 > > To: Adrian Farrel; ccamp@ops.ietf.org > > Cc: gels@rtg.ietf.org; Wijnen, Bert (Bert) > > Subject: RE: Proposed liaison response to IEEE > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > Hi Adrian > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > The Liaison looks good however it does not capture a comment I > > made. =20 > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > My understanding of the S-VLAN translation in IEEE > documents and the > >=20 > > liaison is that the translation is valid in the context > of forwarding > >=20 > > based on a destination MAC. My interpretation is that V-LAN is > > optional > >=20 > > MAC is not. If I am correct VLAN translation as > specified is not > > equal > >=20 > > to Label switching. The Liaison is clear about not just > the format of > >=20 > > 'packets on the wire' but the relationship to the > entities such as > > MAC > >=20 > > relay as well. > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > I think we should also ask in our liaison for > clarification if the > >=20 > > S-VLAN translation can be valid by itself i.e. as a > label agnostic to > >=20 > > the MAC so there is no confusion. > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > Thanks, > >=20 > > Don > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > > -----Original Message----- > >=20 > > > From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org > >=20 > > > All, > >=20 > > > > >=20 > > > The IETF received an unsolicited liaison on the subject of > >=20 > > > 802.1 Ethernet > >=20 > > > > >=20 > > > You can see the liaison at > >=20 > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/file358.pdf > >=20 > > > > >=20 > > > The participants on the GELS mailing list have requested that > >=20 > > > we respond to this to clarify an issue. > >=20 > > > > >=20 > > > Here is the draft of a liaison that we proposed to send. > >=20 > > > Please shout at once if you have any concerns with this > >=20 > > > liaison. I intend to ask Bert to send it on Monday of > next week. > >=20 > > > > >=20 > > > Thanks, > >=20 > > > Adrian > >=20 > > > =3D=3D=3D > >=20 > > > Subject: Response to your liaison "Use of IEEE 802.1Q > VLAN tags" > >=20 > > > > >=20 > > > Date: Sep 2006 > >=20 > > > To: IEEE802.1 > >=20 > > > Tony Jeffree, IEEE 802.1 WG Chair, tony@jeffree.co.uk > >=20 > > > > >=20 > > > From: Bert Wijnen, IETF liaison to IETF liaison to IEEE 802.1 > >=20 > > > Adrian Farrel, IETF CCAMP Working Group co-chair > >=20 > > > Deborah Brungard, IETF CCAMP Working Group co-chair > >=20 > > > > >=20 > > > Cc: Bernard Aboba bernard_aboba@hotmail.com > >=20 > > > Ross Callon rcallon@juniper.net > >=20 > > > Bill Fenner fenner@research.att.com > >=20 > > > CCAMP mailing list ccamp@ops.ietf.org > >=20 > > > GELS mailing list gels@rtg.ietf.org > >=20 > > > > >=20 > > > Thank you for your very informative and clarifying liaison on > >=20 > > > "Use of IEEE 802.1Q VLAN tags". > >=20 > > > > >=20 > > > We have a question arising from this liaison and our reading > >=20 > > > of the relevant standards documents as follows. > >=20 > > > > >=20 > > > The liaison says: "Translation of 802.1Q S-VLAN tags (with 12 > >=20 > > > bit VIDs) is supported at S-tagged service interfaces, as an > >=20 > > > option, by the IEEE Std 802.1ad Provider Bridging amendment > >=20 > > > to IEEE Std 802.1Q." > >=20 > > > > >=20 > > > While this text in itself is clear it leaves open the > >=20 > > > question of whether "S-tagged Service interfaces" is the only > >=20 > > > type of interface where Translation of 802.1Q S-VLAN tags is > >=20 > > > supported. > >=20 > > > > >=20 > > > It is our understanding that IEEE Std 802.1ad does not > >=20 > > > preclude the translation of 802.1Q S-VLAN tags at any > >=20 > > > S-tagged interface. Thus, this translation would be allowed > >=20 > > > at Provider Network Ports, not just at Customer Network Ports. > >=20 > > > > >=20 > > > Can you please confirm whether this is the correct > >=20 > > > interpretation of the IEEE Std 802.1ad amendment to the IEEE > >=20 > > > Std 802.1Q? > >=20 > > > > >=20 > > > Many thanks, > >=20 > > > > >=20 > > > Bert Wijnen, IETF liaison to IEEE 802.1 > >=20 > > > Adrian Farrel and Deborah Brungard, CCAMP Working > Group co-chairs > >=20 > > > > >=20 > > > > >=20 > > > > >=20 > > > > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > _______________________________________________ > >=20 > > gels mailing list > >=20 > > gels@rtg.ietf.org > >=20 > > https://rtg.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gels > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > >=20 >=20 >=20 > -- > Loa Andersson >=20 > Principal Networking Architect > Acreo AB phone: +46 8 632 77 14 > Isafjordsgatan 22 mobile: +46 739 81 21 64 > Kista, Sweden email: loa.andersson@acreo.se > loa@pi.se >=20 >=20 Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 13:36:00 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Proposed liaison response to IEEE Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 16:34:09 +0200 Message-ID: <D3C85156A12AAB4DB23F598007E9826D45F433@dove.seabridge.co.il> Thread-Topic: Proposed liaison response to IEEE Thread-Index: AcbddldP273KLlRIQzqoEjlyRQM/3gABdK1QAAN6wBA= From: "Nurit Sprecher" <nurit.sprecher@SeabridgeNetworks.com> To: "Attila Takacs \(IJ/ETH\)" <Attila.Takacs@ericsson.com>, "Loa Andersson" <loa@pi.se> Cc: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>, <gels@rtg.ietf.org>, <bwijnen@lucent.com>, "Nurit Sprecher" <nurit.sprecher@SeabridgeNetworks.com> Out of scope of the discussion of the liaison... In general, I suggest that before statements on what is applicable and what is not, the IEEE standards are carefully learnt ....... (1) the enhanced filtering criteria does apply with S-VID translation.....there is a VLAN classification process at the ingress........the learning process and the forwarding decisions are taken on the internal VLAN to which the coming frame was classified.......the translation operation is performed after the outgoing port is determined........ (2) If that was true, the entire VLAN concept would loose it meaning............can not we support broadcasting of unknown frames correctly with s-vid translation??????????? (3) etc. Nurit. -----Original Message----- From: gels-bounces@rtg.ietf.org [mailto:gels-bounces@rtg.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Attila Takacs (IJ/ETH) Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 14:59 To: Loa Andersson Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; gels@rtg.ietf.org; bwijnen@lucent.com Subject: RE: Proposed liaison response to IEEE Hi all, I also support the liaison as it is.=20 We will anyhow need to clarify a set of other issues later but these would now over complicated this liaison. BTW, I think the enhanced filtering criteria is not applicable if one applies S-VID translation since the ingress and egress VIDs are different. An other note: even when the enhanced filtering criteria is applied the MAC address is considered by forwarding however due to suppressed MAC learning (no entry for the MAC in FDB) the frame will be "broadcasted" over the (in this case) only one available egress VLAN member port. Regards, Attila > -----Original Message----- > From: gels-bounces@rtg.ietf.org > [mailto:gels-bounces@rtg.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Loa Andersson > Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 2:03 PM > Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; gels@rtg.ietf.org; bwijnen@lucent.com > Subject: Re: Proposed liaison response to IEEE >=20 > All, >=20 > there have been a number of correct statements in this short thread. >=20 > Neil is right (given the layered network model) that Ethernet is a=20 > layer network and as such connectionless and packet oriented. >=20 > Nurit is right that if you configure a VLAN on only to parts of an=20 > Ethernet bridge the frame will go through without looking at the MAC=20 > address >=20 > Don is right that the liaison does not capture an earlier comment he=20 > made on the gels-list. Neither does it capture a comment made by=20 > Attila. >=20 > However, if I understand what is happening here is that we need to=20 > clarify a paragraph in the liaison form the IEEE802.1 on translation=20 > of S-VIDs. >=20 > I guess that this is something we all need to understand, and given=20 > the answer, it will be possible to follow up with further more precise > questions. >=20 > If for example the answer on S-VID translation is that it is not=20 > supported other than at domain borders, then the question on whether=20 > it needs to be done by taking the MAC-address into consideration or=20 > not will have very different meaning. >=20 > Let agree on getting the liaison out, and then decide on what we do=20 > next depending on the answer. >=20 > /Loa >=20 > Nurit Sprecher wrote: > > Hi Neil, > > Thanks for your clarification.=20 > > Please note that the discussion below relates to the > liaison that the > > IETF wants to send to the IEEE in order to understand the standard=20 > > behavior of the Ethernet forwarding behavior. As I > understand it, Don > > was concerned that S-VID translation does not preclude the > forwarding > > decision which is based on the MAC address. My intention was to=20 > > indicate that for point-to-point VLAN connection (on a link), MAC=20 > > learning is not required by the 802.1Qrev-5 spec and the forwarding=20 > > decision does not rely on the MAC address. This is not a > discussion on > > networking but on the standard behavior of the 802.1Q bridges. > > Regards, > > Nuritl. > >=20 > > ________________________________ > >=20 > > From: neil.2.harrison@bt.com [mailto:neil.2.harrison@bt.com] > > Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 13:00 > > To: Nurit Sprecher; dwfedyk@nortel.com; adrian@olddog.co.uk > > Cc: gels@rtg.ietf.org; bwijnen@lucent.com; ccamp@ops.ietf.org > > Subject: RE: Proposed liaison response to IEEE > >=20 > >=20 > > Nurit.....precision is indeed important. In a co mode > layer network > > connections can be p2p or p2mp in nature and each can be > composed of > > multiple concatenated subnetwork-connections (ie nodes in THIS layer > > network) and link-connections......noting that a single p2p=20 > > link-connection hop between 2 bridges in a cl-ps Ethernet layer=20 > > network is NOT a connection in THAT (ie Ethernet) layer network=20 > > (though it will be supported by a trail which is provided by a=20 > > connection in some lower layer network). > > =20 > > regards, Neil > >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org > [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On > > Behalf Of Nurit Sprecher > > Sent: 21 September 2006 12:38 > > To: Don Fedyk; Adrian Farrel > > Cc: gels@rtg.ietf.org; Wijnen, Bert (Bert); > ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Nurit > > Sprecher > > Subject: RE: Proposed liaison response to IEEE > > =09 > > =09 > >=20 > > Hi, > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > I think it is a good idea to send the liaison to the > IEEE and get > > once and for all a clear statement that the s-vid translation is=20 > > supported on each provider bridge port. > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > In addition, the IEEE has recognized that MAC learning is not=20 > > required for point-to-point VLANs in a bridge. The 802.1Q rev-5=20 > > already includes this extension in section 8.7. > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > " The Learning Process receives the source MAC > Addresses and VIDs of > > received frames from the > >=20 > > Forwarding Process, following the application of the > ingress rules > > (8.6.2). It shall create or update a > >=20 > > Dynamic Filtering Entry (8.8.3) that specifies the > reception Port for > > the frame's source address and VID, if > >=20 > > and only if the source address is an Individual > Address, i.e., is not > > a Group Address, the resulting number of > >=20 > > entries would not exceed the capacity of the Filtering > Database, and > > the filtering utility criteria for the > >=20 > > receiving Bridge Port are met." > >=20 > > The enhanced filtering utility criteria "are satisfied > if at least > > one VLAN that uses the FID includes the reception Port and at least=20 > > one other Port with a Port State of Learning or Forwarding in its=20 > > member set, and: a) The operPointToPointMAC parameter is > false for the > > reception Port; or b) Ingress to the VLAN is permitted > through a third > > Port. NOTE -The third port can, but is not required to be in the=20 > > member set.". > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > I think it is clearly stated, but if it is required to > ask the IEEE > > about the context of forwarding based on a destination MAC, > I suggest > > being more precise and specify that we are talking on > point-to-point > > connections. > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > Regards, > >=20 > > Nurit. > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: gels-bounces@rtg.ietf.org > > [mailto:gels-bounces@rtg.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Don Fedyk > > Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 23:16 > > To: Adrian Farrel; ccamp@ops.ietf.org > > Cc: gels@rtg.ietf.org; Wijnen, Bert (Bert) > > Subject: RE: Proposed liaison response to IEEE > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > Hi Adrian > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > The Liaison looks good however it does not capture a comment I > > made. =20 > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > My understanding of the S-VLAN translation in IEEE > documents and the > >=20 > > liaison is that the translation is valid in the context > of forwarding > >=20 > > based on a destination MAC. My interpretation is that V-LAN is=20 > > optional > >=20 > > MAC is not. If I am correct VLAN translation as > specified is not > > equal > >=20 > > to Label switching. The Liaison is clear about not just > the format of > >=20 > > 'packets on the wire' but the relationship to the > entities such as > > MAC > >=20 > > relay as well. =20 > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > I think we should also ask in our liaison for > clarification if the > >=20 > > S-VLAN translation can be valid by itself i.e. as a > label agnostic to > >=20 > > the MAC so there is no confusion. > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > Thanks, > >=20 > > Don > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > > -----Original Message----- > >=20 > > > From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org > >=20 > > > All, > >=20 > > > > >=20 > > > The IETF received an unsolicited liaison on the subject of > >=20 > > > 802.1 Ethernet > >=20 > > > > >=20 > > > You can see the liaison at > >=20 > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/file358.pdf > >=20 > > > > >=20 > > > The participants on the GELS mailing list have requested that > >=20 > > > we respond to this to clarify an issue. > >=20 > > > > >=20 > > > Here is the draft of a liaison that we proposed to send.=20 > >=20 > > > Please shout at once if you have any concerns with this > >=20 > > > liaison. I intend to ask Bert to send it on Monday of > next week. > >=20 > > > > >=20 > > > Thanks, > >=20 > > > Adrian > >=20 > > > =3D=3D=3D > >=20 > > > Subject: Response to your liaison "Use of IEEE 802.1Q > VLAN tags" > >=20 > > > > >=20 > > > Date: Sep 2006 > >=20 > > > To: IEEE802.1 > >=20 > > > Tony Jeffree, IEEE 802.1 WG Chair, tony@jeffree.co.uk > >=20 > > > > >=20 > > > From: Bert Wijnen, IETF liaison to IETF liaison to IEEE 802.1 > >=20 > > > Adrian Farrel, IETF CCAMP Working Group co-chair > >=20 > > > Deborah Brungard, IETF CCAMP Working Group co-chair > >=20 > > > > >=20 > > > Cc: Bernard Aboba bernard_aboba@hotmail.com > >=20 > > > Ross Callon rcallon@juniper.net > >=20 > > > Bill Fenner fenner@research.att.com > >=20 > > > CCAMP mailing list ccamp@ops.ietf.org > >=20 > > > GELS mailing list gels@rtg.ietf.org > >=20 > > > > >=20 > > > Thank you for your very informative and clarifying liaison on > >=20 > > > "Use of IEEE 802.1Q VLAN tags". > >=20 > > > > >=20 > > > We have a question arising from this liaison and our reading > >=20 > > > of the relevant standards documents as follows. > >=20 > > > > >=20 > > > The liaison says: "Translation of 802.1Q S-VLAN tags (with 12 > >=20 > > > bit VIDs) is supported at S-tagged service interfaces, as an > >=20 > > > option, by the IEEE Std 802.1ad Provider Bridging amendment > >=20 > > > to IEEE Std 802.1Q." > >=20 > > > > >=20 > > > While this text in itself is clear it leaves open the > >=20 > > > question of whether "S-tagged Service interfaces" is the only > >=20 > > > type of interface where Translation of 802.1Q S-VLAN tags is > >=20 > > > supported. > >=20 > > > > >=20 > > > It is our understanding that IEEE Std 802.1ad does not > >=20 > > > preclude the translation of 802.1Q S-VLAN tags at any > >=20 > > > S-tagged interface. Thus, this translation would be allowed > >=20 > > > at Provider Network Ports, not just at Customer Network Ports. > >=20 > > > > >=20 > > > Can you please confirm whether this is the correct > >=20 > > > interpretation of the IEEE Std 802.1ad amendment to the IEEE > >=20 > > > Std 802.1Q? > >=20 > > > > >=20 > > > Many thanks, > >=20 > > > > >=20 > > > Bert Wijnen, IETF liaison to IEEE 802.1 > >=20 > > > Adrian Farrel and Deborah Brungard, CCAMP Working > Group co-chairs > >=20 > > > > >=20 > > > > >=20 > > > > >=20 > > > > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > _______________________________________________ > >=20 > > gels mailing list > >=20 > > gels@rtg.ietf.org > >=20 > > https://rtg.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gels > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > >=20 >=20 >=20 > -- > Loa Andersson >=20 > Principal Networking Architect > Acreo AB phone: +46 8 632 77 14 > Isafjordsgatan 22 mobile: +46 739 81 21 64 > Kista, Sweden email: loa.andersson@acreo.se > loa@pi.se=20 > _______________________________________________ > gels mailing list > gels@rtg.ietf.org > https://rtg.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gels >=20 _______________________________________________ gels mailing list gels@rtg.ietf.org https://rtg.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gels Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 12:59:58 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Proposed liaison response to IEEE Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 14:59:15 +0200 Message-ID: <05F34B6959F19F43BBD78FFCD4C15D05012D42A2@esealmw116.eemea.ericsson.se> Thread-Topic: Proposed liaison response to IEEE Thread-Index: AcbddldP273KLlRIQzqoEjlyRQM/3gABdK1Q From: "Attila Takacs \(IJ/ETH\)" <Attila.Takacs@ericsson.com> To: "Loa Andersson" <loa@pi.se> Cc: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>, <gels@rtg.ietf.org>, <bwijnen@lucent.com> Hi all, I also support the liaison as it is.=20 We will anyhow need to clarify a set of other issues later but these would now over complicated this liaison. BTW, I think the enhanced filtering criteria is not applicable if one applies S-VID translation since the ingress and egress VIDs are different. An other note: even when the enhanced filtering criteria is applied the MAC address is considered by forwarding however due to suppressed MAC learning (no entry for the MAC in FDB) the frame will be "broadcasted" over the (in this case) only one available egress VLAN member port. Regards, Attila > -----Original Message----- > From: gels-bounces@rtg.ietf.org=20 > [mailto:gels-bounces@rtg.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Loa Andersson > Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 2:03 PM > Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; gels@rtg.ietf.org; bwijnen@lucent.com > Subject: Re: Proposed liaison response to IEEE >=20 > All, >=20 > there have been a number of correct statements in this short thread. >=20 > Neil is right (given the layered network model) that Ethernet=20 > is a layer network and as such connectionless and packet oriented. >=20 > Nurit is right that if you configure a VLAN on only to parts=20 > of an Ethernet bridge the frame will go through without=20 > looking at the MAC address >=20 > Don is right that the liaison does not capture an earlier=20 > comment he made on the gels-list. Neither does it capture a=20 > comment made by Attila. >=20 > However, if I understand what is happening here is that we=20 > need to clarify a paragraph in the liaison form the IEEE802.1=20 > on translation of S-VIDs. >=20 > I guess that this is something we all need to understand, and=20 > given the answer, it will be possible to follow up with=20 > further more precise questions. >=20 > If for example the answer on S-VID translation is that it is=20 > not supported other than at domain borders, then the question=20 > on whether it needs to be done by taking the MAC-address into=20 > consideration or not will have very different meaning. >=20 > Let agree on getting the liaison out, and then decide on what=20 > we do next depending on the answer. >=20 > /Loa >=20 > Nurit Sprecher wrote: > > Hi Neil, > > Thanks for your clarification.=20 > > Please note that the discussion below relates to the=20 > liaison that the=20 > > IETF wants to send to the IEEE in order to understand the standard=20 > > behavior of the Ethernet forwarding behavior. As I=20 > understand it, Don=20 > > was concerned that S-VID translation does not preclude the=20 > forwarding=20 > > decision which is based on the MAC address. My intention was to=20 > > indicate that for point-to-point VLAN connection (on a link), MAC=20 > > learning is not required by the 802.1Qrev-5 spec and the forwarding=20 > > decision does not rely on the MAC address. This is not a=20 > discussion on=20 > > networking but on the standard behavior of the 802.1Q bridges. > > Regards, > > Nuritl. > >=20 > > ________________________________ > >=20 > > From: neil.2.harrison@bt.com [mailto:neil.2.harrison@bt.com] > > Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 13:00 > > To: Nurit Sprecher; dwfedyk@nortel.com; adrian@olddog.co.uk > > Cc: gels@rtg.ietf.org; bwijnen@lucent.com; ccamp@ops.ietf.org > > Subject: RE: Proposed liaison response to IEEE > >=20 > >=20 > > Nurit.....precision is indeed important. In a co mode=20 > layer network=20 > > connections can be p2p or p2mp in nature and each can be=20 > composed of=20 > > multiple concatenated subnetwork-connections (ie nodes in THIS layer > > network) and link-connections......noting that a single p2p=20 > > link-connection hop between 2 bridges in a cl-ps Ethernet layer=20 > > network is NOT a connection in THAT (ie Ethernet) layer network=20 > > (though it will be supported by a trail which is provided by a=20 > > connection in some lower layer network). > > =20 > > regards, Neil > >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org=20 > [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On=20 > > Behalf Of Nurit Sprecher > > Sent: 21 September 2006 12:38 > > To: Don Fedyk; Adrian Farrel > > Cc: gels@rtg.ietf.org; Wijnen, Bert (Bert);=20 > ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Nurit=20 > > Sprecher > > Subject: RE: Proposed liaison response to IEEE > > =09 > > =09 > >=20 > > Hi, > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > I think it is a good idea to send the liaison to the=20 > IEEE and get=20 > > once and for all a clear statement that the s-vid translation is=20 > > supported on each provider bridge port. > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > In addition, the IEEE has recognized that MAC learning is not=20 > > required for point-to-point VLANs in a bridge. The 802.1Q rev-5=20 > > already includes this extension in section 8.7. > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > " The Learning Process receives the source MAC=20 > Addresses and VIDs of=20 > > received frames from the > >=20 > > Forwarding Process, following the application of the=20 > ingress rules=20 > > (8.6.2). It shall create or update a > >=20 > > Dynamic Filtering Entry (8.8.3) that specifies the=20 > reception Port for=20 > > the frame's source address and VID, if > >=20 > > and only if the source address is an Individual=20 > Address, i.e., is not=20 > > a Group Address, the resulting number of > >=20 > > entries would not exceed the capacity of the Filtering=20 > Database, and=20 > > the filtering utility criteria for the > >=20 > > receiving Bridge Port are met." > >=20 > > The enhanced filtering utility criteria "are satisfied=20 > if at least=20 > > one VLAN that uses the FID includes the reception Port and at least=20 > > one other Port with a Port State of Learning or Forwarding in its=20 > > member set, and: a) The operPointToPointMAC parameter is=20 > false for the=20 > > reception Port; or b) Ingress to the VLAN is permitted=20 > through a third=20 > > Port. NOTE -The third port can, but is not required to be in the=20 > > member set.". > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > I think it is clearly stated, but if it is required to=20 > ask the IEEE=20 > > about the context of forwarding based on a destination MAC,=20 > I suggest=20 > > being more precise and specify that we are talking on=20 > point-to-point=20 > > connections. > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > Regards, > >=20 > > Nurit. > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: gels-bounces@rtg.ietf.org > > [mailto:gels-bounces@rtg.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Don Fedyk > > Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 23:16 > > To: Adrian Farrel; ccamp@ops.ietf.org > > Cc: gels@rtg.ietf.org; Wijnen, Bert (Bert) > > Subject: RE: Proposed liaison response to IEEE > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > Hi Adrian > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > The Liaison looks good however it does not capture a comment I > > made. =20 > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > My understanding of the S-VLAN translation in IEEE=20 > documents and the > >=20 > > liaison is that the translation is valid in the context=20 > of forwarding > >=20 > > based on a destination MAC. My interpretation is that V-LAN is=20 > > optional > >=20 > > MAC is not. If I am correct VLAN translation as=20 > specified is not=20 > > equal > >=20 > > to Label switching. The Liaison is clear about not just=20 > the format of > >=20 > > 'packets on the wire' but the relationship to the=20 > entities such as=20 > > MAC > >=20 > > relay as well. =20 > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > I think we should also ask in our liaison for=20 > clarification if the > >=20 > > S-VLAN translation can be valid by itself i.e. as a=20 > label agnostic to > >=20 > > the MAC so there is no confusion. > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > Thanks, > >=20 > > Don > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > > -----Original Message----- > >=20 > > > From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org > >=20 > > > All, > >=20 > > > > >=20 > > > The IETF received an unsolicited liaison on the subject of > >=20 > > > 802.1 Ethernet > >=20 > > > > >=20 > > > You can see the liaison at > >=20 > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/file358.pdf > >=20 > > > > >=20 > > > The participants on the GELS mailing list have requested that > >=20 > > > we respond to this to clarify an issue. > >=20 > > > > >=20 > > > Here is the draft of a liaison that we proposed to send.=20 > >=20 > > > Please shout at once if you have any concerns with this > >=20 > > > liaison. I intend to ask Bert to send it on Monday of=20 > next week. > >=20 > > > > >=20 > > > Thanks, > >=20 > > > Adrian > >=20 > > > =3D=3D=3D > >=20 > > > Subject: Response to your liaison "Use of IEEE 802.1Q=20 > VLAN tags" > >=20 > > > > >=20 > > > Date: Sep 2006 > >=20 > > > To: IEEE802.1 > >=20 > > > Tony Jeffree, IEEE 802.1 WG Chair, tony@jeffree.co.uk > >=20 > > > > >=20 > > > From: Bert Wijnen, IETF liaison to IETF liaison to IEEE 802.1 > >=20 > > > Adrian Farrel, IETF CCAMP Working Group co-chair > >=20 > > > Deborah Brungard, IETF CCAMP Working Group co-chair > >=20 > > > > >=20 > > > Cc: Bernard Aboba bernard_aboba@hotmail.com > >=20 > > > Ross Callon rcallon@juniper.net > >=20 > > > Bill Fenner fenner@research.att.com > >=20 > > > CCAMP mailing list ccamp@ops.ietf.org > >=20 > > > GELS mailing list gels@rtg.ietf.org > >=20 > > > > >=20 > > > Thank you for your very informative and clarifying liaison on > >=20 > > > "Use of IEEE 802.1Q VLAN tags". > >=20 > > > > >=20 > > > We have a question arising from this liaison and our reading > >=20 > > > of the relevant standards documents as follows. > >=20 > > > > >=20 > > > The liaison says: "Translation of 802.1Q S-VLAN tags (with 12 > >=20 > > > bit VIDs) is supported at S-tagged service interfaces, as an > >=20 > > > option, by the IEEE Std 802.1ad Provider Bridging amendment > >=20 > > > to IEEE Std 802.1Q." > >=20 > > > > >=20 > > > While this text in itself is clear it leaves open the > >=20 > > > question of whether "S-tagged Service interfaces" is the only > >=20 > > > type of interface where Translation of 802.1Q S-VLAN tags is > >=20 > > > supported. > >=20 > > > > >=20 > > > It is our understanding that IEEE Std 802.1ad does not > >=20 > > > preclude the translation of 802.1Q S-VLAN tags at any > >=20 > > > S-tagged interface. Thus, this translation would be allowed > >=20 > > > at Provider Network Ports, not just at Customer Network Ports. > >=20 > > > > >=20 > > > Can you please confirm whether this is the correct > >=20 > > > interpretation of the IEEE Std 802.1ad amendment to the IEEE > >=20 > > > Std 802.1Q? > >=20 > > > > >=20 > > > Many thanks, > >=20 > > > > >=20 > > > Bert Wijnen, IETF liaison to IEEE 802.1 > >=20 > > > Adrian Farrel and Deborah Brungard, CCAMP Working=20 > Group co-chairs > >=20 > > > > >=20 > > > > >=20 > > > > >=20 > > > > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > _______________________________________________ > >=20 > > gels mailing list > >=20 > > gels@rtg.ietf.org > >=20 > > https://rtg.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gels > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > >=20 >=20 >=20 > -- > Loa Andersson >=20 > Principal Networking Architect > Acreo AB phone: +46 8 632 77 14 > Isafjordsgatan 22 mobile: +46 739 81 21 64 > Kista, Sweden email: loa.andersson@acreo.se > loa@pi.se=20 > _______________________________________________ > gels mailing list > gels@rtg.ietf.org > https://rtg.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gels >=20 Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 12:32:39 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-36-146102614 Message-Id: <A2912454-4C2A-439E-8053-C247B6FDA987@cisco.com> Cc: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>, "Ross Callon" <rcallon@juniper.net> From: JP Vasseur <jvasseur@cisco.com> Subject: Re: Routing Directorate comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-automesh-01 Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 08:32:08 -0400 To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; l=32785; t=1158841933; x=1159705933; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim1001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=jvasseur@cisco.com; z=From:JP=20Vasseur=20<jvasseur@cisco.com> |Subject:Re=3A=20Routing=20Directorate=20comments=20on=20draft-ietf-ccamp-automes h-01 |To:=22Adrian=20Farrel=22=20<adrian@olddog.co.uk>; X=v=3Dcisco.com=3B=20h=3DMEBChjdj4/CIq2s4jZyCacxjCHY=3D; b=sXj5s6poseORm4S1h5YvITMwou/LKpYraejs7ohNNUIhXCNhklGdGcrodhrzcKQ4vJxkPtgd kD8SKBPcfD7rAs1u+sPkPgec9jn8k4gmeMRMQFhNZFSA89AEcESREZE6; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com; header.From=jvasseur@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( 29 extraneous bytes; sig from cisco.com verified; ); --Apple-Mail-36-146102614 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; delsp=yes; format=flowed Hi Adrian, On Sep 2, 2006, at 9:25 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > Hi, > > We held an additional last call for this draft in the IGP working =20 > groups and received some further comments that JP has just =20 > addressed in a new revision. > > We have also received some comments from a review in the Routing =20 > Directorate that I am pr=E9cising below. JP, authors: please look =20 > through these and let us know your proposals for dealing with them. > Sure, in line. > Thanks, > Adrian > > =3D=3D=3D > > 1) The Tail-end name field facilitates LSP identification. Is this =20 > a new form of LSP identification? > If it is not new, then there should be a reference to RFC3209 and a =20= > statement of which RFC3209 fields are mapped to this IGP field. > If it is not new then there is a significant concern that a new =20 > identification is being introduced when it is not needed. As indicated in the document the string refers to a "Tail-end" name, =20 not an TE LSP name: thus it does not replace the session name of the =20 SESSION-ATTRIBUTE object defined in RFC3209. > > 2) The document mentions that the number of mesh groups is limited =20 > but potentially (depending on encoding) provides for binary =20 > encoding for > 2^32-1 groups (although this might be constrained by OSPF's limit =20 > of a TLV size to 2^16 bytes. > The document (and the authors) state that scaling of these =20 > extensions is not an issue because only a small number of mesh =20 > groups are likely to be in existence in a network, and any one =20 > router is unlikely to participate in more than a very few. > There are two concerns: > a) Whenever we say that something in the Internet is limited, =20 > history usually proves us wrong. And that's undoubtedly a good news :-) > Indeed, there is already a > proposal (draft-leroux-mpls-p2mp-te-autoleaf-01.txt) that uses a =20 > similar mechanism for a problem that would have far more groups. Two comments: - Mesh groups are used to set up TE LSP meshes. If we consider let =20 say 10 meshes comprising 100 routers each, that gives us 99,000 TE =20 LSPs. One can easily see that the number of meshes is unlikely to =20 explode in a foreseeable future. If it turns out to be the case, =20 we'll have other scalability issues to fix before any potential with =20 the IGP. - More importantly, the dynamics of joining a TE mesh is such that =20 IGP updates are used to advertise to TE mesh group membership change =20 (join or prune), which are indeed expected to be very unfrequent. > b) The I-D does not itself impose any reasonable limits on the =20 > number of groups with the potential for a single router (by =20 > misconfiguration, design, or malice) advertising a very large =20 > number of groups. > Thus, it appears that the scaling concerns are not properly =20 > addressed in this I-D. > Not sure to see the point here. If indeed, a large number of TE MESH =20 GROUPs were advertised, this would not impact the other LSRs since =20 they would not create any new TE LSPs trying to join the new TE-MESH-=20 GROUP. In term of amount of flooded information, this should not be a =20= concern either (handled by routing). We clarified this in the =20 security section. > 3) The document mentions that "The TE-MESH-GROUP TLV is OPTIONAL =20 > and must at most appear once in a OSPF Router Information LSA or =20 > ISIS Router Capability TLV." but for addition/removal it mentions =20 > "conversely, if the LSR leaves a mesh-group the corresponding entry =20= > will be removed from the TE-MESH-GROUP TLV." > What are these "entries" referring to - that there is a top-level =20 > TE-MESH-GROUP TLV with multiple sub-TLVs (but the document mentions =20= > "No sub-TLV is currently defined for the TE-mesh-group TLV") ? > > AF>> My comment on this is that the definition of the TLVs seems =20 > unclear. > AF>> =46rom figure 2, it appears that some additional information can = be > AF>> present in the TLV after the fields listed, and (reading =20 > between the > AF>> lines) it would appear that this additional information is a =20 > series of > AF>> repeats of the set of fields to define multiple mesh groups. > AF>> This could usefully be clarified considerably. > You're absolutely right. The figures have been modified: (example show below): 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | mesh-group-number 1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Tail-end IPv4 address 1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Name length | Tail-end name 1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ // /=20= / +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | mesh-group-number n | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Tail-end IPv4 address n | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Name length | Tail-end name n | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 2 - OSPF TE-MESH-GROUP TLV format (IPv4 Address) > AF>> > AF>> But it is now unclear to me whether a single router can be a =20 > member > AF>> of IPv4 an IPv6 mesh groups. It would seem that these cannot be > AF>> mixed within a single TLV, and multiple TLVs (one IPv4 and one > AF>> IPv6) are prohibited. OK the text requires some clarification. What is prohibited is to =20 have two IPv4 sub-TLV or two IPv6 sub-TLV but one of each is =20 permitted. New proposed text to clarify: The TE-MESH-GROUP TLV is OPTIONAL and at most one IPv4 instance and =20 one IPv6 instance MUST appear in a OSPF Router Information LSA or =20 ISIS Router Capability TLV. If the OSPF TE-MESH-GROUP TLV (IPv4 or =20 IPv6) occurs more than once within the OSPF Router Information LSA, =20 only the first instance is processed, subsequent TLV(s) will be =20 silently ignored. Similarly, If the ISIS TE-MESH-GROUP sub-TLV (IPv4 =20 or IPv6) occurs more than once within the ISIS Router capability TLV, =20= only the first instance is processed, subsequent TLV(s) will be =20 silently ignored. > > 4) Small terminology issue in section 5.1 it says: "Note that both =20 > operations can be performed in the context of a single refresh." > This is not a refresh. It is a trigger/update. A better term for =20 > OSPF would be "LSA origination". > OK fixed (I used the term "Update"), thanks. > 5) Please state the applicability to OSPF v2 and or v3. Note that =20 > the Router_Cap document covers both v2 and v3 Indeed, Thanks for the comments. The OSPFv3 aspects have been =20 incorporated. Here is the new text: The TE-MESH-GROUP TLV is advertised within an OSPF Router =20 Information opaque LSA (opaque type of 4, opaque ID of 0) for OSPFv2 ([RFC2328]) and within a new LSA (Router Information LSA) for OSPFv3 =20 ([RFC2740]). ... As defined in [RFC2370] for OSPVv2 and in [RFC2740] for OSPFv3, the flooding scope of the Router Information LSA is determined by the =20= LSA Opaque type for OSPFv2 and the values of the S1/S2 bits for OSPFv3. For OSPFv2 Router Information opaque LSA: - Link-local scope: type 9; - Area-local scope: type 10; - Routing-domain scope: type 11. In this case, the flooding =20 scope is equivalent to the Type 5 LSA flooding scope. For OSPFv3 Router Information LSA: - Link-local scope: OSPFV3 Router Information LSA with the S1 and S2 bits cleared; - Area-local scope: OSPFV3 Router Information LSA with the S1 bit =20= set and the S2 bit cleared; - Routing-domain scope: OSPFv3 Router Information LSA with S1 bit cleared and the S2 bit set. A router may generate multiple OSPF Router Information LSAs with different flooding scopes. The TE-MESH-GROUP TLV may be advertised within an Area-local or Routing-domain scope Router Information LSA depending on the MPLS TE mesh group profile: - If the MPLS TE mesh-group is contained within a single area (all the LSRs of the mesh-group are contained within a single area), the TE-MESH-GROUP TLV MUST be generated within an Area-local Router Information LSA; - If the MPLS TE mesh-group spans multiple OSPF areas, the TE mesh- group TLV MUST be generated within a Routing-domain scope router information LSA. > > 6) The term "fairly static" at the end of section 5.1 is =20 > meaningless without some relative context. > Presumably this relates to the number times an LSR joins or leaves =20 > a mesh group over time. > Is it intended to be relative to the IGP refresh period? > Please clarify in an objective rather than a subjective way. > Right, this requires clarification. Here is the new text: Moreover, =20 TE mesh-group membership should not change frequently: each time an =20 LSR joins or leaves a new TE mesh-group. I guess that this is sufficiently explicit: it is a well-known fact =20 that LSRs are infrequently added or removed to a TE mesh. > 7) The security section (section 8) is inadequate and will =20 > undoubtedly be rejected by the security ADs. At the very least, the =20= > I-D needs a paragraph (i.e. more than one or two lines) explaining =20 > why there are no new security considerations. But what would be the =20= > impact of adding false mesh groups to a TLV? Is there anything =20 > (dangerous) that can be learned about the network by inspecting =20 > mesh group TLVs? > The following section has been added: No new security issues are raised in this document. Any new =20 security issues raised by the procedures in this document depend upon the opportunity for LSAs/LSPs to be snooped, the ease/difficulty of =20 which has not been altered. Security considerations are covered in [RFC2328] and [RFC2740] for the base OSPF protocol and in [RFC1194] for IS-IS. As the LSPs may now contain additional information regarding router capabilities, this new information would also =20 become available. Note that intentional or unintentional advertisement of "fake" TE Mesh Groups by an LSR A does not have any impact on other LSRs since an LSR B would only try to signal a TE LSP torward that advertizing LSR A to join the advertized TE Mesh TE Group if and =20 only if such TE Mesh Group is also locally configured on LSR B. + new references added. Does that address the comments ? Thanks. JP.= --Apple-Mail-36-146102614 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 <HTML><BODY style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space; = -khtml-line-break: after-white-space; ">Hi Adrian,<DIV><BR><DIV><DIV>On = Sep 2, 2006, at 9:25 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:</DIV><BR = class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite"><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; ">Hi,</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; = margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: = 14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">We held an additional last call = for this draft in the IGP working groups and received some further = comments that JP has just addressed in a new revision.</DIV><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: = 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">We have = also received some comments from a review in the Routing Directorate = that I am pr=E9cising below. JP, authors: please look through these and = let us know your proposals for dealing with them.</DIV><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR = class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>Sure, in = line.</DIV><BR><BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite"><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; = margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: = 14px; "></DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Thanks,</DIV><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; ">Adrian</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; = margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: = 14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">=3D=3D=3D</DIV><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: = 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">1) The = Tail-end name field facilitates LSP identification. Is this a new form = of LSP identification?</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: = 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">If it is not new, then = there should be a reference to RFC3209 and a statement of which RFC3209 = fields are mapped to this IGP field.</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; = margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">If it is not = new then there is a significant concern that a new identification is = being introduced when it is not needed.</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR = class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>As indicated in the = document the string refers to a "Tail-end" name, not an TE LSP name: = thus it does not replace the session name of the SESSION-ATTRIBUTE = object defined in RFC3209.=A0</DIV><BR><BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite"><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: = 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">2) The = document mentions that the number of mesh groups is limited but = potentially (depending on encoding) provides for binary encoding = for</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">2^32-1 groups (although this = might be constrained by OSPF's limit of a TLV size to 2^16 = bytes.</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">The document (and the authors) = state that scaling of these extensions is not an issue because only a = small number of mesh groups are likely to be in existence in a network, = and any one router is unlikely to participate in more than a very = few.</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">There are two = concerns:</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">a) Whenever we say that = something in the Internet is limited, history usually proves us wrong. = <BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR = class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>And that's undoubtedly a = good news :-)=A0</DIV><BR><BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite"><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; ">Indeed, there is already a</DIV><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; ">proposal (draft-leroux-mpls-p2mp-te-autoleaf-01.txt) = that uses a similar mechanism for a problem that would have far more = groups.</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR = class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>Two comments:</DIV><DIV>- = Mesh groups are used to set up TE LSP meshes. If we consider let say 10 = meshes comprising 100 routers each, that gives us 99,000 TE LSPs. One = can easily see that the number of meshes is unlikely to explode in = a=A0foreseeable future. If it turns out to be the case, we'll have other = scalability issues to fix before any potential with the IGP.</DIV><DIV>- = More importantly, the dynamics of joining a TE mesh is such that IGP = updates are used to advertise to TE mesh group membership change (join = or prune), which are indeed expected to be very = unfrequent.</DIV><BR><BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite"><DIV style=3D"margin-top: = 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">b) The = I-D does not itself impose any reasonable limits on the number of groups = with the potential for a single router (by misconfiguration, design, or = malice) advertising a very large number of groups.</DIV><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; ">Thus, it appears that the scaling concerns are not = properly addressed in this I-D.</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; = margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: = 14px; "><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR = class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>Not sure to see the point = here. If indeed, a large number of TE MESH GROUPs were advertised, this = would not impact the other LSRs since they would not create any new TE = LSPs trying to join the new TE-MESH-GROUP. In term of amount of flooded = information, this should not be a concern either (handled by routing). = We clarified this in the security section.</DIV><BR><BLOCKQUOTE = type=3D"cite"><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "></DIV><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; ">3) The document mentions that "The TE-MESH-GROUP TLV = is OPTIONAL and must at most appear once in a OSPF Router Information = LSA or ISIS Router Capability TLV." but for addition/removal it mentions = "conversely, if the LSR leaves a mesh-group the corresponding entry will = be removed from the TE-MESH-GROUP TLV."</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: = 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">What are = these "entries" referring to - that there is a top-level TE-MESH-GROUP = TLV with multiple sub-TLVs (but the document mentions "No sub-TLV is = currently defined for the TE-mesh-group TLV") ?</DIV><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: = 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; = ">AF>> My comment on this is that the definition of the TLVs seems = unclear.</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">AF>> =46rom figure 2, it = appears that some additional information can be</DIV><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; ">AF>> present in the TLV after the fields = listed, and (reading between the</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; = margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">AF>> = lines) it would appear that this additional information is a series = of</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: = 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">AF>> repeats of the set of fields to = define multiple mesh groups.</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; = margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">AF>> = This could usefully be clarified considerably.</DIV><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; "><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR = class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>You're absolutely right. = The figures have been modified:</DIV><DIV><BR = class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>(example show = below):</DIV><DIV><BR class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>=A0 =A0= =A0=A0 =A00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 = 1</DIV><DIV>=A0 =A0 =A0 = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+</DIV><DI= V>=A0 =A0 =A0 |=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 = mesh-group-number 1=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 = |</DIV><DIV>=A0 =A0 =A0 = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+</DIV><DI= V>=A0 =A0 =A0 |=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0=A0 Tail-end IPv4 = address 1=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0=A0 |</DIV><DIV>=A0 =A0 =A0 = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+</DIV><DI= V>=A0 =A0 =A0 |=A0 Name length=A0 |=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0=A0 = Tail-end name 1=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0=A0 |</DIV><DIV>=A0 =A0 =A0 = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+</DIV><DI= V>=A0 =A0=A0 //=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0= =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0=A0 = //</DIV><DIV>=A0 =A0 =A0 = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+</DIV><DI= V>=A0 =A0 =A0 |=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 = mesh-group-number n=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 = |</DIV><DIV>=A0 =A0 =A0 = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+</DIV><DI= V>=A0 =A0 =A0 |=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0=A0 Tail-end IPv4 = address n=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0=A0 |</DIV><DIV>=A0 =A0=A0 = =A0+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+</DIV>= <DIV>=A0 =A0 =A0 |=A0 Name length=A0 |=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0=A0 = Tail-end name n=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0=A0 |</DIV><DIV>=A0 =A0 =A0 = +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+</DIV><DI= V><BR class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 = Figure 2 - OSPF TE-MESH-GROUP TLV format (IPv4 Address)</DIV><DIV><BR = class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><BR><BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite"><DIV= style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; ">AF>></DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; = margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">AF>> = But it is now unclear to me whether a single router can be a = member</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">AF>> of IPv4 an IPv6 mesh = groups. It would seem that these cannot be</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: = 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; = ">AF>> mixed within a single TLV, and multiple TLVs (one IPv4 and = one</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">AF>> IPv6) are = prohibited.</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR = class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>OK the text requires some = clarification. What is prohibited is to have two IPv4 sub-TLV or two = IPv6 sub-TLV but one of each is permitted. New proposed text to = clarify:</DIV><DIV><BR class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV><I>The= TE-MESH-GROUP TLV is OPTIONAL and at most one IPv4 instance and one = IPv6 instance MUST appear in a OSPF Router Information LSA or ISIS = Router Capability TLV. If the OSPF TE-MESH-GROUP TLV (IPv4 or IPv6) = occurs more than once within the OSPF Router Information LSA, only the = first instance is processed, subsequent TLV(s) will be silently ignored. = Similarly, If the ISIS TE-MESH-GROUP sub-TLV (IPv4 or IPv6) occurs more = than once within the ISIS Router capability TLV, only the first instance = is processed, subsequent TLV(s) will be silently = ignored.</I></DIV><BR><BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite"><DIV style=3D"margin-top: = 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; = min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; = margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">4) Small = terminology issue in section 5.1 it says: "Note that both operations can = be performed in the context of a single refresh."</DIV><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; ">This is not a refresh. It is a trigger/update. A = better term for OSPF would be "LSA origination".</DIV><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR = class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>OK fixed (I used the term = "Update"), thanks.</DIV><BR><BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite"><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "></DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: = 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">5) = Please state the applicability to OSPF v2 and or v3. Note that the = Router_Cap document covers both v2 and v3</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR = class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>Indeed, Thanks for the = comments.=A0 The OSPFv3 aspects have been incorporated. Here is the new = text:</DIV><DIV><BR class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV><I>=A0 = =A0The TE-MESH-GROUP TLV is advertised within an OSPF Router = Information</I></DIV><DIV><I>=A0=A0 opaque LSA (opaque type of 4, opaque = ID of 0) for OSPFv2 ([RFC2328])</I></DIV><DIV><I>=A0=A0 and within a new = LSA (Router Information LSA) for OSPFv3 = ([RFC2740]).</I></DIV><DIV><I><BR = class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></I></DIV><DIV><I>...</I></DIV><DIV><I><= BR class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></I></DIV><DIV><I>=A0 =A0As defined = in [RFC2370] for OSPVv2 and in [RFC2740] for OSPFv3, = the</I></DIV><DIV><I>=A0=A0 flooding scope of the Router Information LSA = is determined by the LSA</I></DIV><DIV><I>=A0=A0 Opaque type for OSPFv2 = and the values of the S1/S2 bits for OSPFv3.</I></DIV><DIV><I><BR = class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></I></DIV><DIV><I>=A0=A0 For OSPFv2 = Router Information opaque LSA:</I></DIV><DIV><I><BR = class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></I></DIV><DIV><I>=A0=A0 - Link-local = scope: type 9;</I></DIV><DIV><I><BR = class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></I></DIV><DIV><I>=A0=A0 - Area-local = scope: type 10;</I></DIV><DIV><I><BR = class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></I></DIV><DIV><I>=A0=A0 - = Routing-domain scope: type 11.=A0 In this case, the flooding scope = is</I></DIV><DIV><I>=A0=A0 equivalent to the Type 5 LSA flooding = scope.</I></DIV><DIV><I><BR = class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></I></DIV><DIV><I>=A0=A0 For OSPFv3 = Router Information LSA:</I></DIV><DIV><I><BR = class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></I></DIV><DIV><I>=A0=A0 - Link-local = scope: OSPFV3 Router Information LSA with the S1 and = S2</I></DIV><DIV><I>=A0=A0 bits cleared;</I></DIV><DIV><I><BR = class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></I></DIV><DIV><I>=A0=A0 - Area-local = scope: OSPFV3 Router Information LSA with the S1 bit = set</I></DIV><DIV><I>=A0=A0 and the S2 bit cleared;</I></DIV><DIV><I><BR = class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></I></DIV><DIV><I>=A0=A0 - = Routing-domain scope: OSPFv3 Router Information LSA with S1 = bit</I></DIV><DIV><I>=A0 =A0cleared and the S2 bit = set.</I></DIV><DIV><I><BR = class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></I></DIV><DIV><I>=A0=A0 A router may = generate multiple OSPF Router Information LSAs with</I></DIV><DIV><I>=A0=A0= different flooding scopes.=A0 The TE-MESH-GROUP TLV may be = advertised</I></DIV><DIV><I>=A0=A0 within an Area-local or = Routing-domain scope Router Information LSA</I></DIV><DIV><I>=A0=A0 = depending on the MPLS TE mesh group profile:</I></DIV><DIV><I><BR = class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></I></DIV><DIV><I>=A0=A0 - If the MPLS = TE mesh-group is contained within a single area (all</I></DIV><DIV><I>=A0=A0= the LSRs of the mesh-group are contained within a single area), = the</I></DIV><DIV><I>=A0=A0 TE-MESH-GROUP TLV MUST be generated within = an Area-local Router</I></DIV><DIV><I>=A0=A0 Information = LSA;</I></DIV><DIV><I><BR = class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></I></DIV><DIV><I>=A0=A0 - If the MPLS = TE mesh-group spans multiple OSPF areas, the TE = mesh-</I></DIV><DIV><I>=A0=A0 group TLV MUST be generated within a = Routing-domain scope router</I></DIV><DIV><I>=A0=A0 information = LSA.</I></DIV><I><BR></I><BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite"><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: = 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">6) The = term "fairly static" at the end of section 5.1 is meaningless without = some relative context.</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: = 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Presumably this relates to = the number times an LSR joins or leaves a mesh group over = time.</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Is it intended to be relative to = the IGP refresh period?</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; = margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">Please = clarify in an objective rather than a subjective way.</DIV><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR = class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>Right, this requires = clarification. Here is the new text:=A0<I>Moreover, TE mesh-group = membership should not change frequently: each time an LSR joins or = leaves a new TE mesh-group.=A0</I></DIV><DIV><BR = class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>I guess that this is = sufficiently explicit: it is a well-known fact that LSRs = are=A0infrequently added or removed to a TE mesh.</DIV><BR><BLOCKQUOTE = type=3D"cite"><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "></DIV><DIV = style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; = margin-left: 0px; ">7) The security section (section 8) is inadequate = and will undoubtedly be rejected by the security ADs. At the very least, = the I-D needs a paragraph (i.e. more than one or two lines) explaining = why there are no new security considerations. But what would be the = impact of adding false mesh groups to a TLV? Is there anything = (dangerous) that can be learned about the network by inspecting mesh = group TLVs?</DIV><DIV style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; = margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV> = </BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></DIV><DIV>The following section has been = added:</DIV><DIV><BR class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV><SPAN = class=3D"Apple-style-span">=A0 =A0<I>No new security issues are raised = in this document.=A0 Any new security</I></SPAN></DIV><DIV><I>=A0=A0 = issues raised by the procedures in this document depend upon = the</I></DIV><DIV><I>=A0=A0 opportunity for LSAs/LSPs to be snooped, the = ease/difficulty of which</I></DIV><DIV><I>=A0=A0 has not been altered.=A0 = Security considerations are covered in</I></DIV><DIV><I>=A0=A0 [RFC2328] = and [RFC2740] for the base OSPF protocol and in = [RFC1194]</I></DIV><DIV><I>=A0=A0 for IS-IS.=A0 As the LSPs may now = contain additional information</I></DIV><DIV><I>=A0=A0 regarding router = capabilities, this new information would also become</I></DIV><DIV><I>=A0 = =A0available.=A0 Note that intentional or unintentional advertisement = of</I></DIV><DIV><I>=A0=A0 "fake" TE Mesh Groups by an LSR A does not = have any impact on other</I></DIV><DIV><I>=A0=A0 LSRs since an LSR B = would only try to signal a TE LSP torward that</I></DIV><DIV><I>=A0=A0 = advertizing LSR A to join the advertized TE Mesh TE Group if and = only</I></DIV><DIV><I>=A0=A0 if such TE Mesh Group is also locally = configured on LSR B.</I></DIV><DIV><BR = class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>+ new references = added.</DIV><DIV><BR class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV><BR = class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>Does that address the = comments ?</DIV><DIV><BR = class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>Thanks.</DIV><DIV><BR = class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>JP.</DIV></BODY></HTML>= --Apple-Mail-36-146102614-- Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 12:21:12 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Proposed liaison response to IEEE Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 15:20:02 +0200 Message-ID: <D3C85156A12AAB4DB23F598007E9826D45F287@dove.seabridge.co.il> Thread-Topic: Proposed liaison response to IEEE Thread-Index: AcbdftFBQ4XXOrHzQmehkQbu8IRfdwAAc4dA From: "Nurit Sprecher" <nurit.sprecher@SeabridgeNetworks.com> To: "Loa Andersson" <loa@pi.se> Cc: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>, <gels@rtg.ietf.org>, <bwijnen@lucent.com> I approve the liaison as stated.=20 -----Original Message----- From: gels-bounces@rtg.ietf.org [mailto:gels-bounces@rtg.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Loa Andersson Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 14:03 Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; gels@rtg.ietf.org; bwijnen@lucent.com Subject: Re: Proposed liaison response to IEEE All, there have been a number of correct statements in this short thread. Neil is right (given the layered network model) that Ethernet is a layer network and as such connectionless and packet oriented. Nurit is right that if you configure a VLAN on only to parts of an Ethernet bridge the frame will go through without looking at the MAC address Don is right that the liaison does not capture an earlier comment he made on the gels-list. Neither does it capture a comment made by Attila. However, if I understand what is happening here is that we need to clarify a paragraph in the liaison form the IEEE802.1 on translation of S-VIDs. I guess that this is something we all need to understand, and given the answer, it will be possible to follow up with further more precise questions. If for example the answer on S-VID translation is that it is not supported other than at domain borders, then the question on whether it needs to be done by taking the MAC-address into consideration or not will have very different meaning. Let agree on getting the liaison out, and then decide on what we do next depending on the answer. /Loa Nurit Sprecher wrote: > Hi Neil, > Thanks for your clarification.=20 > Please note that the discussion below relates to the liaison that the=20 > IETF wants to send to the IEEE in order to understand the standard=20 > behavior of the Ethernet forwarding behavior. As I understand it, Don=20 > was concerned that S-VID translation does not preclude the forwarding=20 > decision which is based on the MAC address. My intention was to=20 > indicate that for point-to-point VLAN connection (on a link), MAC=20 > learning is not required by the 802.1Qrev-5 spec and the forwarding=20 > decision does not rely on the MAC address. This is not a discussion on > networking but on the standard behavior of the 802.1Q bridges. > Regards, > Nuritl. >=20 > ________________________________ >=20 > From: neil.2.harrison@bt.com [mailto:neil.2.harrison@bt.com] > Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 13:00 > To: Nurit Sprecher; dwfedyk@nortel.com; adrian@olddog.co.uk > Cc: gels@rtg.ietf.org; bwijnen@lucent.com; ccamp@ops.ietf.org > Subject: RE: Proposed liaison response to IEEE >=20 >=20 > Nurit.....precision is indeed important. In a co mode layer network=20 > connections can be p2p or p2mp in nature and each can be composed of=20 > multiple concatenated subnetwork-connections (ie nodes in THIS layer > network) and link-connections......noting that a single p2p=20 > link-connection hop between 2 bridges in a cl-ps Ethernet layer=20 > network is NOT a connection in THAT (ie Ethernet) layer network=20 > (though it will be supported by a trail which is provided by a=20 > connection in some lower layer network). > =20 > regards, Neil >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On=20 > Behalf Of Nurit Sprecher > Sent: 21 September 2006 12:38 > To: Don Fedyk; Adrian Farrel > Cc: gels@rtg.ietf.org; Wijnen, Bert (Bert); ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Nurit=20 > Sprecher > Subject: RE: Proposed liaison response to IEEE > =09 > =09 >=20 > Hi, >=20 > =20 >=20 > I think it is a good idea to send the liaison to the IEEE and get=20 > once and for all a clear statement that the s-vid translation is=20 > supported on each provider bridge port. >=20 > =20 >=20 > In addition, the IEEE has recognized that MAC learning is not=20 > required for point-to-point VLANs in a bridge. The 802.1Q rev-5=20 > already includes this extension in section 8.7. >=20 > =20 >=20 > " The Learning Process receives the source MAC Addresses and VIDs of=20 > received frames from the >=20 > Forwarding Process, following the application of the ingress rules=20 > (8.6.2). It shall create or update a >=20 > Dynamic Filtering Entry (8.8.3) that specifies the reception Port for=20 > the frame's source address and VID, if >=20 > and only if the source address is an Individual Address, i.e., is not=20 > a Group Address, the resulting number of >=20 > entries would not exceed the capacity of the Filtering Database, and=20 > the filtering utility criteria for the >=20 > receiving Bridge Port are met." >=20 > The enhanced filtering utility criteria "are satisfied if at least=20 > one VLAN that uses the FID includes the reception Port and at least=20 > one other Port with a Port State of Learning or Forwarding in its=20 > member set, and: a) The operPointToPointMAC parameter is false for the > reception Port; or b) Ingress to the VLAN is permitted through a third > Port. NOTE -The third port can, but is not required to be in the=20 > member set.". >=20 > =20 >=20 > I think it is clearly stated, but if it is required to ask the IEEE=20 > about the context of forwarding based on a destination MAC, I suggest=20 > being more precise and specify that we are talking on point-to-point=20 > connections. >=20 > =20 >=20 > Regards, >=20 > Nurit. >=20 > =20 >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: gels-bounces@rtg.ietf.org > [mailto:gels-bounces@rtg.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Don Fedyk > Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 23:16 > To: Adrian Farrel; ccamp@ops.ietf.org > Cc: gels@rtg.ietf.org; Wijnen, Bert (Bert) > Subject: RE: Proposed liaison response to IEEE >=20 > =20 >=20 > Hi Adrian >=20 > =20 >=20 > The Liaison looks good however it does not capture a comment I > made. =20 >=20 > =20 >=20 > My understanding of the S-VLAN translation in IEEE documents and the >=20 > liaison is that the translation is valid in the context of forwarding >=20 > based on a destination MAC. My interpretation is that V-LAN is=20 > optional >=20 > MAC is not. If I am correct VLAN translation as specified is not > equal >=20 > to Label switching. The Liaison is clear about not just the format of >=20 > 'packets on the wire' but the relationship to the entities such as=20 > MAC >=20 > relay as well. =20 >=20 > =20 >=20 > I think we should also ask in our liaison for clarification if the >=20 > S-VLAN translation can be valid by itself i.e. as a label agnostic to >=20 > the MAC so there is no confusion. >=20 > =20 >=20 > Thanks, >=20 > Don >=20 > =20 >=20 > =20 >=20 > > -----Original Message----- >=20 > > From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org >=20 > > All, >=20 > > >=20 > > The IETF received an unsolicited liaison on the subject of >=20 > > 802.1 Ethernet >=20 > > >=20 > > You can see the liaison at >=20 > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/file358.pdf >=20 > > >=20 > > The participants on the GELS mailing list have requested that >=20 > > we respond to this to clarify an issue. >=20 > > >=20 > > Here is the draft of a liaison that we proposed to send.=20 >=20 > > Please shout at once if you have any concerns with this >=20 > > liaison. I intend to ask Bert to send it on Monday of next week. >=20 > > >=20 > > Thanks, >=20 > > Adrian >=20 > > =3D=3D=3D >=20 > > Subject: Response to your liaison "Use of IEEE 802.1Q VLAN tags" >=20 > > >=20 > > Date: Sep 2006 >=20 > > To: IEEE802.1 >=20 > > Tony Jeffree, IEEE 802.1 WG Chair, tony@jeffree.co.uk >=20 > > >=20 > > From: Bert Wijnen, IETF liaison to IETF liaison to IEEE 802.1 >=20 > > Adrian Farrel, IETF CCAMP Working Group co-chair >=20 > > Deborah Brungard, IETF CCAMP Working Group co-chair >=20 > > >=20 > > Cc: Bernard Aboba bernard_aboba@hotmail.com >=20 > > Ross Callon rcallon@juniper.net >=20 > > Bill Fenner fenner@research.att.com >=20 > > CCAMP mailing list ccamp@ops.ietf.org >=20 > > GELS mailing list gels@rtg.ietf.org >=20 > > >=20 > > Thank you for your very informative and clarifying liaison on >=20 > > "Use of IEEE 802.1Q VLAN tags". >=20 > > >=20 > > We have a question arising from this liaison and our reading >=20 > > of the relevant standards documents as follows. >=20 > > >=20 > > The liaison says: "Translation of 802.1Q S-VLAN tags (with 12 >=20 > > bit VIDs) is supported at S-tagged service interfaces, as an >=20 > > option, by the IEEE Std 802.1ad Provider Bridging amendment >=20 > > to IEEE Std 802.1Q." >=20 > > >=20 > > While this text in itself is clear it leaves open the >=20 > > question of whether "S-tagged Service interfaces" is the only >=20 > > type of interface where Translation of 802.1Q S-VLAN tags is >=20 > > supported. >=20 > > >=20 > > It is our understanding that IEEE Std 802.1ad does not >=20 > > preclude the translation of 802.1Q S-VLAN tags at any >=20 > > S-tagged interface. Thus, this translation would be allowed >=20 > > at Provider Network Ports, not just at Customer Network Ports. >=20 > > >=20 > > Can you please confirm whether this is the correct >=20 > > interpretation of the IEEE Std 802.1ad amendment to the IEEE >=20 > > Std 802.1Q? >=20 > > >=20 > > Many thanks, >=20 > > >=20 > > Bert Wijnen, IETF liaison to IEEE 802.1 >=20 > > Adrian Farrel and Deborah Brungard, CCAMP Working Group co-chairs >=20 > > >=20 > > >=20 > > >=20 > > >=20 > =20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ >=20 > gels mailing list >=20 > gels@rtg.ietf.org >=20 > https://rtg.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gels >=20 > =20 >=20 >=20 -- Loa Andersson Principal Networking Architect Acreo AB phone: +46 8 632 77 14 Isafjordsgatan 22 mobile: +46 739 81 21 64 Kista, Sweden email: loa.andersson@acreo.se loa@pi.se _______________________________________________ gels mailing list gels@rtg.ietf.org https://rtg.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gels Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 12:03:54 +0000 Message-ID: <45127F6F.8050907@pi.se> Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 14:02:55 +0200 From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.se> Organization: Acreo AB User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (Windows/20060909) MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: gels@rtg.ietf.org, bwijnen@lucent.com, ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: Proposed liaison response to IEEE Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit All, there have been a number of correct statements in this short thread. Neil is right (given the layered network model) that Ethernet is a layer network and as such connectionless and packet oriented. Nurit is right that if you configure a VLAN on only to parts of an Ethernet bridge the frame will go through without looking at the MAC address Don is right that the liaison does not capture an earlier comment he made on the gels-list. Neither does it capture a comment made by Attila. However, if I understand what is happening here is that we need to clarify a paragraph in the liaison form the IEEE802.1 on translation of S-VIDs. I guess that this is something we all need to understand, and given the answer, it will be possible to follow up with further more precise questions. If for example the answer on S-VID translation is that it is not supported other than at domain borders, then the question on whether it needs to be done by taking the MAC-address into consideration or not will have very different meaning. Let agree on getting the liaison out, and then decide on what we do next depending on the answer. /Loa Nurit Sprecher wrote: > Hi Neil, > Thanks for your clarification. > Please note that the discussion below relates to the liaison that the > IETF wants to send to the IEEE in order to understand the standard > behavior of the Ethernet forwarding behavior. As I understand it, Don > was concerned that S-VID translation does not preclude the forwarding > decision which is based on the MAC address. My intention was to indicate > that for point-to-point VLAN connection (on a link), MAC learning is not > required by the 802.1Qrev-5 spec and the forwarding decision does not > rely on the MAC address. This is not a discussion on networking but on > the standard behavior of the 802.1Q bridges. > Regards, > Nuritl. > > ________________________________ > > From: neil.2.harrison@bt.com [mailto:neil.2.harrison@bt.com] > Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 13:00 > To: Nurit Sprecher; dwfedyk@nortel.com; adrian@olddog.co.uk > Cc: gels@rtg.ietf.org; bwijnen@lucent.com; ccamp@ops.ietf.org > Subject: RE: Proposed liaison response to IEEE > > > Nurit.....precision is indeed important. In a co mode layer network > connections can be p2p or p2mp in nature and each can be composed of > multiple concatenated subnetwork-connections (ie nodes in THIS layer > network) and link-connections......noting that a single p2p > link-connection hop between 2 bridges in a cl-ps Ethernet layer network > is NOT a connection in THAT (ie Ethernet) layer network (though it will > be supported by a trail which is provided by a connection in some lower > layer network). > > regards, Neil > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] > On Behalf Of Nurit Sprecher > Sent: 21 September 2006 12:38 > To: Don Fedyk; Adrian Farrel > Cc: gels@rtg.ietf.org; Wijnen, Bert (Bert); ccamp@ops.ietf.org; > Nurit Sprecher > Subject: RE: Proposed liaison response to IEEE > > > > Hi, > > > > I think it is a good idea to send the liaison to the IEEE and > get once and for all a clear statement that the s-vid translation is > supported on each provider bridge port. > > > > In addition, the IEEE has recognized that MAC learning is not > required for point-to-point VLANs in a bridge. The 802.1Q rev-5 already > includes this extension in section 8.7. > > > > " The Learning Process receives the source MAC Addresses and > VIDs of received frames from the > > Forwarding Process, following the application of the ingress > rules (8.6.2). It shall create or update a > > Dynamic Filtering Entry (8.8.3) that specifies the reception > Port for the frame's source address and VID, if > > and only if the source address is an Individual Address, i.e., > is not a Group Address, the resulting number of > > entries would not exceed the capacity of the Filtering Database, > and the filtering utility criteria for the > > receiving Bridge Port are met." > > The enhanced filtering utility criteria "are satisfied if at > least one VLAN that uses the FID includes the reception Port and at > least one other Port with a Port State of Learning or Forwarding in its > member set, and: a) The operPointToPointMAC parameter is false for the > reception Port; or b) Ingress to the VLAN is permitted through a third > Port. NOTE -The third port can, but is not required to be in the member > set.". > > > > I think it is clearly stated, but if it is required to ask the > IEEE about the context of forwarding based on a destination MAC, I > suggest being more precise and specify that we are talking on > point-to-point connections. > > > > Regards, > > Nurit. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: gels-bounces@rtg.ietf.org > [mailto:gels-bounces@rtg.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Don Fedyk > Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 23:16 > To: Adrian Farrel; ccamp@ops.ietf.org > Cc: gels@rtg.ietf.org; Wijnen, Bert (Bert) > Subject: RE: Proposed liaison response to IEEE > > > > Hi Adrian > > > > The Liaison looks good however it does not capture a comment I > made. > > > > My understanding of the S-VLAN translation in IEEE documents and > the > > liaison is that the translation is valid in the context of > forwarding > > based on a destination MAC. My interpretation is that V-LAN is > optional > > MAC is not. If I am correct VLAN translation as specified is not > equal > > to Label switching. The Liaison is clear about not just the > format of > > 'packets on the wire' but the relationship to the entities such > as MAC > > relay as well. > > > > I think we should also ask in our liaison for clarification if > the > > S-VLAN translation can be valid by itself i.e. as a label > agnostic to > > the MAC so there is no confusion. > > > > Thanks, > > Don > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org > > > All, > > > > > > The IETF received an unsolicited liaison on the subject of > > > 802.1 Ethernet > > > > > > You can see the liaison at > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/file358.pdf > > > > > > The participants on the GELS mailing list have requested that > > > we respond to this to clarify an issue. > > > > > > Here is the draft of a liaison that we proposed to send. > > > Please shout at once if you have any concerns with this > > > liaison. I intend to ask Bert to send it on Monday of next > week. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Adrian > > > === > > > Subject: Response to your liaison "Use of IEEE 802.1Q VLAN > tags" > > > > > > Date: Sep 2006 > > > To: IEEE802.1 > > > Tony Jeffree, IEEE 802.1 WG Chair, tony@jeffree.co.uk > > > > > > From: Bert Wijnen, IETF liaison to IETF liaison to IEEE 802.1 > > > Adrian Farrel, IETF CCAMP Working Group co-chair > > > Deborah Brungard, IETF CCAMP Working Group co-chair > > > > > > Cc: Bernard Aboba bernard_aboba@hotmail.com > > > Ross Callon rcallon@juniper.net > > > Bill Fenner fenner@research.att.com > > > CCAMP mailing list ccamp@ops.ietf.org > > > GELS mailing list gels@rtg.ietf.org > > > > > > Thank you for your very informative and clarifying liaison on > > > "Use of IEEE 802.1Q VLAN tags". > > > > > > We have a question arising from this liaison and our reading > > > of the relevant standards documents as follows. > > > > > > The liaison says: "Translation of 802.1Q S-VLAN tags (with 12 > > > bit VIDs) is supported at S-tagged service interfaces, as an > > > option, by the IEEE Std 802.1ad Provider Bridging amendment > > > to IEEE Std 802.1Q." > > > > > > While this text in itself is clear it leaves open the > > > question of whether "S-tagged Service interfaces" is the only > > > type of interface where Translation of 802.1Q S-VLAN tags is > > > supported. > > > > > > It is our understanding that IEEE Std 802.1ad does not > > > preclude the translation of 802.1Q S-VLAN tags at any > > > S-tagged interface. Thus, this translation would be allowed > > > at Provider Network Ports, not just at Customer Network Ports. > > > > > > Can you please confirm whether this is the correct > > > interpretation of the IEEE Std 802.1ad amendment to the IEEE > > > Std 802.1Q? > > > > > > Many thanks, > > > > > > Bert Wijnen, IETF liaison to IEEE 802.1 > > > Adrian Farrel and Deborah Brungard, CCAMP Working Group > co-chairs > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > gels mailing list > > gels@rtg.ietf.org > > https://rtg.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gels > > > > -- Loa Andersson Principal Networking Architect Acreo AB phone: +46 8 632 77 14 Isafjordsgatan 22 mobile: +46 739 81 21 64 Kista, Sweden email: loa.andersson@acreo.se loa@pi.se Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 11:16:11 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C6DD77.8E066949" Subject: RE: Proposed liaison response to IEEE Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 14:14:57 +0200 Message-ID: <D3C85156A12AAB4DB23F598007E9826D45F101@dove.seabridge.co.il> Thread-Topic: Proposed liaison response to IEEE Thread-Index: Acbc7HRnAX/g41+pSkGzWxFpSzGTXAAAF6CAACBecuAAANq2gAABJOyw From: "Nurit Sprecher" <nurit.sprecher@SeabridgeNetworks.com> To: <neil.2.harrison@bt.com>, <dwfedyk@nortel.com>, <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Cc: <gels@rtg.ietf.org>, <bwijnen@lucent.com>, <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>, "Nurit Sprecher" <nurit.sprecher@SeabridgeNetworks.com> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C6DD77.8E066949 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Neil, Thanks for your clarification.=20 Please note that the discussion below relates to the liaison that the IETF wants to send to the IEEE in order to understand the standard behavior of the Ethernet forwarding behavior. As I understand it, Don was concerned that S-VID translation does not preclude the forwarding decision which is based on the MAC address. My intention was to indicate that for point-to-point VLAN connection (on a link), MAC learning is not required by the 802.1Qrev-5 spec and the forwarding decision does not rely on the MAC address. This is not a discussion on networking but on the standard behavior of the 802.1Q bridges. Regards, Nuritl. ________________________________ From: neil.2.harrison@bt.com [mailto:neil.2.harrison@bt.com]=20 Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 13:00 To: Nurit Sprecher; dwfedyk@nortel.com; adrian@olddog.co.uk Cc: gels@rtg.ietf.org; bwijnen@lucent.com; ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: RE: Proposed liaison response to IEEE Nurit.....precision is indeed important. In a co mode layer network connections can be p2p or p2mp in nature and each can be composed of multiple concatenated subnetwork-connections (ie nodes in THIS layer network) and link-connections......noting that a single p2p link-connection hop between 2 bridges in a cl-ps Ethernet layer network is NOT a connection in THAT (ie Ethernet) layer network (though it will be supported by a trail which is provided by a connection in some lower layer network). =20 regards, Neil -----Original Message----- From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Nurit Sprecher Sent: 21 September 2006 12:38 To: Don Fedyk; Adrian Farrel Cc: gels@rtg.ietf.org; Wijnen, Bert (Bert); ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Nurit Sprecher Subject: RE: Proposed liaison response to IEEE =09 =09 Hi, =20 I think it is a good idea to send the liaison to the IEEE and get once and for all a clear statement that the s-vid translation is supported on each provider bridge port.=20 =20 In addition, the IEEE has recognized that MAC learning is not required for point-to-point VLANs in a bridge. The 802.1Q rev-5 already includes this extension in section 8.7.=20 =20 " The Learning Process receives the source MAC Addresses and VIDs of received frames from the Forwarding Process, following the application of the ingress rules (8.6.2). It shall create or update a Dynamic Filtering Entry (8.8.3) that specifies the reception Port for the frame's source address and VID, if and only if the source address is an Individual Address, i.e., is not a Group Address, the resulting number of entries would not exceed the capacity of the Filtering Database, and the filtering utility criteria for the receiving Bridge Port are met." The enhanced filtering utility criteria "are satisfied if at least one VLAN that uses the FID includes the reception Port and at least one other Port with a Port State of Learning or Forwarding in its member set, and: a) The operPointToPointMAC parameter is false for the reception Port; or b) Ingress to the VLAN is permitted through a third Port. NOTE -The third port can, but is not required to be in the member set.".=20 =20 I think it is clearly stated, but if it is required to ask the IEEE about the context of forwarding based on a destination MAC, I suggest being more precise and specify that we are talking on point-to-point connections. =20 Regards, Nurit. =20 -----Original Message----- From: gels-bounces@rtg.ietf.org [mailto:gels-bounces@rtg.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Don Fedyk Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 23:16 To: Adrian Farrel; ccamp@ops.ietf.org Cc: gels@rtg.ietf.org; Wijnen, Bert (Bert) Subject: RE: Proposed liaison response to IEEE =20 Hi Adrian =20 The Liaison looks good however it does not capture a comment I made. =20 =20 My understanding of the S-VLAN translation in IEEE documents and the liaison is that the translation is valid in the context of forwarding based on a destination MAC. My interpretation is that V-LAN is optional MAC is not. If I am correct VLAN translation as specified is not equal to Label switching. The Liaison is clear about not just the format of 'packets on the wire' but the relationship to the entities such as MAC relay as well. =20 =20 I think we should also ask in our liaison for clarification if the S-VLAN translation can be valid by itself i.e. as a label agnostic to the MAC so there is no confusion. =20 Thanks, Don =20 =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org=20 > All, >=20 > The IETF received an unsolicited liaison on the subject of=20 > 802.1 Ethernet >=20 > You can see the liaison at > https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/file358.pdf >=20 > The participants on the GELS mailing list have requested that=20 > we respond to this to clarify an issue. >=20 > Here is the draft of a liaison that we proposed to send.=20 > Please shout at once if you have any concerns with this=20 > liaison. I intend to ask Bert to send it on Monday of next week. >=20 > Thanks, > Adrian > =3D=3D=3D > Subject: Response to your liaison "Use of IEEE 802.1Q VLAN tags" >=20 > Date: Sep 2006 > To: IEEE802.1 > Tony Jeffree, IEEE 802.1 WG Chair, tony@jeffree.co.uk >=20 > From: Bert Wijnen, IETF liaison to IETF liaison to IEEE 802.1 > Adrian Farrel, IETF CCAMP Working Group co-chair > Deborah Brungard, IETF CCAMP Working Group co-chair >=20 > Cc: Bernard Aboba bernard_aboba@hotmail.com > Ross Callon rcallon@juniper.net > Bill Fenner fenner@research.att.com > CCAMP mailing list ccamp@ops.ietf.org > GELS mailing list gels@rtg.ietf.org >=20 > Thank you for your very informative and clarifying liaison on=20 > "Use of IEEE 802.1Q VLAN tags". >=20 > We have a question arising from this liaison and our reading=20 > of the relevant standards documents as follows. >=20 > The liaison says: "Translation of 802.1Q S-VLAN tags (with 12=20 > bit VIDs) is supported at S-tagged service interfaces, as an=20 > option, by the IEEE Std 802.1ad Provider Bridging amendment=20 > to IEEE Std 802.1Q." >=20 > While this text in itself is clear it leaves open the=20 > question of whether "S-tagged Service interfaces" is the only=20 > type of interface where Translation of 802.1Q S-VLAN tags is=20 > supported. >=20 > It is our understanding that IEEE Std 802.1ad does not=20 > preclude the translation of 802.1Q S-VLAN tags at any=20 > S-tagged interface. Thus, this translation would be allowed=20 > at Provider Network Ports, not just at Customer Network Ports. >=20 > Can you please confirm whether this is the correct=20 > interpretation of the IEEE Std 802.1ad amendment to the IEEE=20 > Std 802.1Q? >=20 > Many thanks, >=20 > Bert Wijnen, IETF liaison to IEEE 802.1 > Adrian Farrel and Deborah Brungard, CCAMP Working Group co-chairs >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 =20 _______________________________________________ gels mailing list gels@rtg.ietf.org https://rtg.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gels =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C6DD77.8E066949 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" xmlns:o =3D=20 "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w =3D=20 "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1 =3D=20 "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"><HEAD><TITLE>Message</TITLE>= <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; = charset=3Dus-ascii"> <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2722" name=3DGENERATOR><o:SmartTagType = namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"=20 name=3D"PlaceType"></o:SmartTagType><o:SmartTagType=20 namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"=20 name=3D"PlaceName"></o:SmartTagType><o:SmartTagType=20 namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" = name=3D"City"=20 downloadurl=3D"http://www.5iamas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"></o:Smar= tTagType><o:SmartTagType=20 namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" = name=3D"place"=20 downloadurl=3D"http://www.5iantlavalamp.com/"></o:SmartTagType><!--[if = !mso]> <STYLE>st1\:* { BEHAVIOR: url(#default#ieooui) } </STYLE> <![endif]--> <STYLE>@page Section1 {size: 595.3pt 841.9pt; margin: 1.0in 69.6pt 1.0in = 69.6pt; } P.MsoNormal { FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman" } LI.MsoNormal { FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman" } DIV.MsoNormal { FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman" } A:link { COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } SPAN.MsoHyperlink { COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } A:visited { COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed { COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline } P.MsoPlainText { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Courier New" } LI.MsoPlainText { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Courier New" } DIV.MsoPlainText { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Courier New" } DIV.Section1 { page: Section1 } </STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY lang=3DEN-US vLink=3Dpurple link=3Dblue> <DIV><SPAN class=3D476560512-21092006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff = size=3D2>Hi=20 Neil,</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D476560512-21092006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff = size=3D2>Thanks=20 for your clarification. </FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D476560512-21092006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff = size=3D2>Please=20 note that the discussion below relates to the liaison that the IETF = wants to=20 send to the IEEE in order to understand the standard behavior of the = Ethernet=20 forwarding behavior. As I understand it, Don was concerned that S-VID=20 translation does not preclude the forwarding decision which is based on = the MAC=20 address. My intention was to indicate that for point-to-point VLAN=20 connection (on a link), MAC learning is not required by the 802.1Qrev-5 = spec and=20 the forwarding decision does not rely on the MAC address. This is not a=20 discussion on networking but on the standard behavior of the 802.1Q=20 bridges.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D476560512-21092006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff = size=3D2>Regards,</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D476560512-21092006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff = size=3D2>Nuritl.</FONT></SPAN></DIV><BR> <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader lang=3Den-us dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft> <HR tabIndex=3D-1> <FONT face=3DTahoma size=3D2><B>From:</B> neil.2.harrison@bt.com=20 [mailto:neil.2.harrison@bt.com] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, September 21, = 2006=20 13:00<BR><B>To:</B> Nurit Sprecher; dwfedyk@nortel.com;=20 adrian@olddog.co.uk<BR><B>Cc:</B> gels@rtg.ietf.org; bwijnen@lucent.com; = ccamp@ops.ietf.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: Proposed liaison response to=20 IEEE<BR></FONT><BR></DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D353154410-21092006><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" = color=3D#800000=20 size=3D2>Nurit.....precision is indeed important. In a co mode = layer network=20 connections can be p2p or p2mp in nature and each can be composed of = multiple=20 concatenated subnetwork-connections (ie nodes in THIS layer network) and = link-connections......noting that a single p2p link-connection hop = between 2=20 bridges in a cl-ps Ethernet layer network is NOT a connection in = THAT (ie=20 Ethernet) layer network (though it will be supported by a trail which is = provided by a connection in some lower layer = network).</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D353154410-21092006><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" = color=3D#800000=20 size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D353154410-21092006><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" = color=3D#800000=20 size=3D2>regards, Neil</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE=20 style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #800000 2px = solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV></DIV> <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader lang=3Den-us dir=3Dltr = align=3Dleft><FONT=20 face=3DTahoma size=3D2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>=20 owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] <B>On = Behalf Of=20 </B>Nurit Sprecher<BR><B>Sent:</B> 21 September 2006 = 12:38<BR><B>To:</B> Don=20 Fedyk; Adrian Farrel<BR><B>Cc:</B> gels@rtg.ietf.org; Wijnen, Bert = (Bert);=20 ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Nurit Sprecher<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: Proposed = liaison=20 response to IEEE<BR><BR></FONT></DIV> <DIV class=3DSection1 dir=3Drtl> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Hi,<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">I think it is a good idea to send the = liaison to the=20 IEEE and get once and for all a clear statement that the s-vid = translation is=20 supported on each provider bridge port. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">In addition, the IEEE has recognized that = <B><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold">MAC learning is not required for = point-to-point=20 VLANs in a bridge</SPAN></B>. <B><SPAN style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold">The = 802.1Q=20 rev-5 already includes this extension in section 8.7</SPAN></B>.=20 <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">" The Learning Process receives the source = MAC=20 Addresses and VIDs of received frames from = the<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Forwarding Process, following the = application of the=20 ingress rules (8.6.2). <B><SPAN style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold">It shall = create or=20 update a<o:p></o:p></SPAN></B></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><B><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Dynamic Filtering Entry = (8.8.3)=20 that specifies the <st1:place w:st=3D"on"><st1:PlaceName=20 w:st=3D"on">reception</st1:PlaceName> <st1:PlaceType=20 w:st=3D"on">Port</st1:PlaceType></st1:place> for the frame’s = source address and=20 VID, if<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></B></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><B><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">and only if = </SPAN></FONT></B>the=20 source address is an Individual Address, i.e., is not a Group Address, = the=20 resulting number of<o:p></o:p></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">entries would not exceed the capacity of the = Filtering=20 Database, <B><SPAN style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold">and the filtering = utility=20 criteria for the<o:p></o:p></SPAN></B></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><B><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">receiving <st1:place=20 w:st=3D"on"><st1:PlaceType w:st=3D"on">Bridge</st1:PlaceType> = <st1:PlaceType=20 w:st=3D"on">Port</st1:PlaceType></st1:place> are = met."</SPAN></FONT></B><B><SPAN=20 lang=3DHE dir=3Drtl style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: = bold"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></B></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">The enhanced filtering utility criteria "are = satisfied=20 if at least one VLAN that uses the FID includes the reception Port and = at=20 least one other Port with a Port State of Learning or Forwarding in = its member=20 set, and: a) The operPointToPointMAC parameter is false for the = reception=20 Port; or b) Ingress to the VLAN is permitted through a third Port. = NOTE —The=20 third port can, but is not required to be in the member set.".=20 <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">I think it is clearly stated, but if it is = required to=20 ask the IEEE about the context of forwarding based on a destination = MAC,=20 <B><SPAN style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold">I suggest being more precise and = specify=20 that we are talking on</SPAN></B> <B><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold">point-to-point=20 connections.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></B></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><B><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: = 10pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></B></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Regards,<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Nurit.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">-----Original Message-----<BR>From:=20 gels-bounces@rtg.ietf.org [mailto:gels-bounces@rtg.ietf.org] On Behalf = Of Don=20 Fedyk<BR>Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 23:16<BR>To: Adrian = Farrel;=20 ccamp@ops.ietf.org<BR>Cc: gels@rtg.ietf.org; Wijnen, Bert = (Bert)<BR>Subject:=20 RE: Proposed liaison response to IEEE</SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Hi Adrian<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">The Liaison looks good however it does not = capture a=20 comment I made. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">My understanding of the S-VLAN translation = in IEEE=20 documents and the<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">liaison is that the translation is valid in = the=20 context of forwarding<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">based on a destination MAC. My = interpretation is that=20 V-LAN is optional<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">MAC is not. If I am correct VLAN translation = as=20 specified is not equal<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">to Label switching. The Liaison is clear = about not=20 just the format of<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">'packets on the wire' but the relationship = to the=20 entities such as MAC<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">relay as well. = <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">I think we should also ask in our liaison = for=20 clarification if the<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">S-VLAN translation can be valid by itself = i.e. as a=20 label agnostic to<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">the MAC so there is no=20 confusion.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Thanks,<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Don<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> -----Original=20 Message-----<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org=20 <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> All,<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> The IETF received an unsolicited = liaison on the=20 subject of <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> 802.1 = Ethernet<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> You can see the liaison=20 at<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">>=20 = https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/file358.pdf<o:p></o:p></SP= AN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> The participants on the GELS mailing = list have=20 requested that <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> we respond to this to clarify an=20 issue.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> Here is the draft of a liaison that we = proposed=20 to send. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> Please shout at once if you have any = concerns=20 with this <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> liaison. I intend to ask Bert to send = it on=20 Monday of next week.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> Thanks,<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> <st1:City w:st=3D"on"><st1:place=20 w:st=3D"on">Adrian</st1:place></st1:City><o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> =3D=3D=3D<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> Subject: Response to your liaison "Use = of IEEE=20 802.1Q VLAN tags"<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> Date: Sep = 2006<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> To: = IEEE802.1<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> Tony = Jeffree, IEEE=20 802.1 WG Chair, tony@jeffree.co.uk<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> From: Bert Wijnen, IETF liaison to IETF = liaison=20 to IEEE 802.1<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: = 10pt">> =20 Adrian Farrel, IETF CCAMP Working Group = co-chair<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: = 10pt">> =20 Deborah Brungard, IETF CCAMP Working Group=20 co-chair<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> Cc: Bernard Aboba=20 bernard_aboba@hotmail.com<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: = 10pt">> Ross=20 Callon rcallon@juniper.net<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: = 10pt">> Bill=20 Fenner fenner@research.att.com<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: = 10pt">> CCAMP=20 mailing list ccamp@ops.ietf.org<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: = 10pt">> GELS=20 mailing list gels@rtg.ietf.org<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> Thank you for your very informative and = clarifying liaison on <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> "Use of IEEE 802.1Q VLAN=20 tags".<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> We have a question arising from this = liaison and=20 our reading <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> of the relevant standards documents as=20 follows.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> The liaison says: "Translation of = 802.1Q S-VLAN=20 tags (with 12 <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> bit VIDs) is supported at S-tagged = service=20 interfaces, as an <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> option, by the IEEE Std 802.1ad = Provider Bridging=20 amendment <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> to IEEE Std = 802.1Q."<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> While this text in itself is clear it = leaves open=20 the <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> question of whether "S-tagged Service = interfaces"=20 is the only <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> type of interface where Translation of = 802.1Q=20 S-VLAN tags is <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> supported.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> It is our understanding that IEEE Std = 802.1ad=20 does not <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> preclude the translation of 802.1Q = S-VLAN tags at=20 any <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> S-tagged interface. Thus, this = translation would=20 be allowed <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> at Provider Network Ports, not just at = Customer=20 Network Ports.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> Can you please confirm whether this is = the=20 correct <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> interpretation of the IEEE Std 802.1ad = amendment=20 to the IEEE <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> Std = 802.1Q?<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> Many = thanks,<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> Bert Wijnen, IETF liaison to IEEE=20 802.1<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> Adrian Farrel and Deborah Brungard, = CCAMP Working=20 Group co-chairs<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: = 10pt">_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></SPAN></= FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">gels mailing = list<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: = 10pt">gels@rtg.ietf.org<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: = 10pt">https://rtg.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gels<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT>= </P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: = 10pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML= > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C6DD77.8E066949-- Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 11:00:34 +0000 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C6DD6D.1821739E" Subject: RE: Proposed liaison response to IEEE Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 12:00:05 +0100 Message-ID: <0536FC9B908BEC4597EE721BE6A35389188A9743@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net> Thread-Topic: Proposed liaison response to IEEE Thread-Index: Acbc7HRnAX/g41+pSkGzWxFpSzGTXAAAF6CAACBecuAAANq2gA== From: <neil.2.harrison@bt.com> To: <nurit.sprecher@SeabridgeNetworks.com>, <dwfedyk@nortel.com>, <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Cc: <gels@rtg.ietf.org>, <bwijnen@lucent.com>, <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C6DD6D.1821739E Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Nurit.....precision is indeed important. In a co mode layer network connections can be p2p or p2mp in nature and each can be composed of multiple concatenated subnetwork-connections (ie nodes in THIS layer network) and link-connections......noting that a single p2p link-connection hop between 2 bridges in a cl-ps Ethernet layer network is NOT a connection in THAT (ie Ethernet) layer network (though it will be supported by a trail which is provided by a connection in some lower layer network). =20 regards, Neil -----Original Message----- From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Nurit Sprecher Sent: 21 September 2006 12:38 To: Don Fedyk; Adrian Farrel Cc: gels@rtg.ietf.org; Wijnen, Bert (Bert); ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Nurit Sprecher Subject: RE: Proposed liaison response to IEEE Hi, =20 I think it is a good idea to send the liaison to the IEEE and get once and for all a clear statement that the s-vid translation is supported on each provider bridge port.=20 =20 In addition, the IEEE has recognized that MAC learning is not required for point-to-point VLANs in a bridge. The 802.1Q rev-5 already includes this extension in section 8.7.=20 =20 " The Learning Process receives the source MAC Addresses and VIDs of received frames from the Forwarding Process, following the application of the ingress rules (8.6.2). It shall create or update a Dynamic Filtering Entry (8.8.3) that specifies the reception Port for the frame's source address and VID, if and only if the source address is an Individual Address, i.e., is not a Group Address, the resulting number of entries would not exceed the capacity of the Filtering Database, and the filtering utility criteria for the receiving Bridge Port are met." The enhanced filtering utility criteria "are satisfied if at least one VLAN that uses the FID includes the reception Port and at least one other Port with a Port State of Learning or Forwarding in its member set, and: a) The operPointToPointMAC parameter is false for the reception Port; or b) Ingress to the VLAN is permitted through a third Port. NOTE -The third port can, but is not required to be in the member set.".=20 =20 I think it is clearly stated, but if it is required to ask the IEEE about the context of forwarding based on a destination MAC, I suggest being more precise and specify that we are talking on point-to-point connections. =20 Regards, Nurit. =20 -----Original Message----- From: gels-bounces@rtg.ietf.org [mailto:gels-bounces@rtg.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Don Fedyk Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 23:16 To: Adrian Farrel; ccamp@ops.ietf.org Cc: gels@rtg.ietf.org; Wijnen, Bert (Bert) Subject: RE: Proposed liaison response to IEEE =20 Hi Adrian =20 The Liaison looks good however it does not capture a comment I made. =20 =20 My understanding of the S-VLAN translation in IEEE documents and the liaison is that the translation is valid in the context of forwarding based on a destination MAC. My interpretation is that V-LAN is optional MAC is not. If I am correct VLAN translation as specified is not equal to Label switching. The Liaison is clear about not just the format of 'packets on the wire' but the relationship to the entities such as MAC relay as well. =20 =20 I think we should also ask in our liaison for clarification if the S-VLAN translation can be valid by itself i.e. as a label agnostic to the MAC so there is no confusion. =20 Thanks, Don =20 =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org=20 > All, >=20 > The IETF received an unsolicited liaison on the subject of=20 > 802.1 Ethernet >=20 > You can see the liaison at > https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/file358.pdf >=20 > The participants on the GELS mailing list have requested that=20 > we respond to this to clarify an issue. >=20 > Here is the draft of a liaison that we proposed to send.=20 > Please shout at once if you have any concerns with this=20 > liaison. I intend to ask Bert to send it on Monday of next week. >=20 > Thanks, > Adrian > =3D=3D=3D > Subject: Response to your liaison "Use of IEEE 802.1Q VLAN tags" >=20 > Date: Sep 2006 > To: IEEE802.1 > Tony Jeffree, IEEE 802.1 WG Chair, tony@jeffree.co.uk >=20 > From: Bert Wijnen, IETF liaison to IETF liaison to IEEE 802.1 > Adrian Farrel, IETF CCAMP Working Group co-chair > Deborah Brungard, IETF CCAMP Working Group co-chair >=20 > Cc: Bernard Aboba bernard_aboba@hotmail.com > Ross Callon rcallon@juniper.net > Bill Fenner fenner@research.att.com > CCAMP mailing list ccamp@ops.ietf.org > GELS mailing list gels@rtg.ietf.org >=20 > Thank you for your very informative and clarifying liaison on=20 > "Use of IEEE 802.1Q VLAN tags". >=20 > We have a question arising from this liaison and our reading=20 > of the relevant standards documents as follows. >=20 > The liaison says: "Translation of 802.1Q S-VLAN tags (with 12=20 > bit VIDs) is supported at S-tagged service interfaces, as an=20 > option, by the IEEE Std 802.1ad Provider Bridging amendment=20 > to IEEE Std 802.1Q." >=20 > While this text in itself is clear it leaves open the=20 > question of whether "S-tagged Service interfaces" is the only=20 > type of interface where Translation of 802.1Q S-VLAN tags is=20 > supported. >=20 > It is our understanding that IEEE Std 802.1ad does not=20 > preclude the translation of 802.1Q S-VLAN tags at any=20 > S-tagged interface. Thus, this translation would be allowed=20 > at Provider Network Ports, not just at Customer Network Ports. >=20 > Can you please confirm whether this is the correct=20 > interpretation of the IEEE Std 802.1ad amendment to the IEEE=20 > Std 802.1Q? >=20 > Many thanks, >=20 > Bert Wijnen, IETF liaison to IEEE 802.1 > Adrian Farrel and Deborah Brungard, CCAMP Working Group co-chairs >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 =20 _______________________________________________ gels mailing list gels@rtg.ietf.org https://rtg.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gels =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C6DD6D.1821739E Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" xmlns:o =3D=20 "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w =3D=20 "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1 =3D=20 "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"><HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; = charset=3Dus-ascii"> <TITLE>Message</TITLE> <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2769" name=3DGENERATOR><o:SmartTagType = name=3D"PlaceType"=20 namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"></o:SmartTagT= ype><o:SmartTagType=20 name=3D"PlaceName"=20 namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"></o:SmartTagT= ype><o:SmartTagType=20 name=3D"City" = namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"=20 downloadurl=3D"http://www.5iamas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"></o:Smar= tTagType><o:SmartTagType=20 name=3D"place" = namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"=20 downloadurl=3D"http://www.5iantlavalamp.com/"></o:SmartTagType><!--[if = !mso]> <STYLE> st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) } </STYLE> <![endif]--> <STYLE> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {color:blue; text-decoration:underline;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple; text-decoration:underline;} p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText {margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Courier New";} @page Section1 {size:595.3pt 841.9pt; margin:1.0in 69.6pt 1.0in 69.6pt;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY lang=3DEN-US vLink=3Dpurple link=3Dblue> <DIV><SPAN class=3D353154410-21092006><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" = color=3D#800000=20 size=3D2>Nurit.....precision is indeed important. In a co mode = layer network=20 connections can be p2p or p2mp in nature and each can be composed of = multiple=20 concatenated subnetwork-connections (ie nodes in THIS layer network) and = link-connections......noting that a single p2p link-connection hop = between 2=20 bridges in a cl-ps Ethernet layer network is NOT a connection in = THAT (ie=20 Ethernet) layer network (though it will be supported by a trail which is = provided by a connection in some lower layer = network).</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D353154410-21092006><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" = color=3D#800000=20 size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D353154410-21092006><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" = color=3D#800000=20 size=3D2>regards, Neil</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE=20 style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #800000 2px = solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV></DIV> <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader lang=3Den-us dir=3Dltr = align=3Dleft><FONT=20 face=3DTahoma size=3D2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>=20 owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] <B>On = Behalf Of=20 </B>Nurit Sprecher<BR><B>Sent:</B> 21 September 2006 = 12:38<BR><B>To:</B> Don=20 Fedyk; Adrian Farrel<BR><B>Cc:</B> gels@rtg.ietf.org; Wijnen, Bert = (Bert);=20 ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Nurit Sprecher<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: Proposed = liaison=20 response to IEEE<BR><BR></FONT></DIV> <DIV class=3DSection1 dir=3Drtl> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Hi,<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">I think it is a good idea to send the = liaison to the=20 IEEE and get once and for all a clear statement that the s-vid = translation is=20 supported on each provider bridge port. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">In addition, the IEEE has recognized that = <B><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold">MAC learning is not required for = point-to-point=20 VLANs in a bridge</SPAN></B>. <B><SPAN style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold">The = 802.1Q=20 rev-5 already includes this extension in section 8.7</SPAN></B>.=20 <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">" The Learning Process receives the source = MAC=20 Addresses and VIDs of received frames from = the<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Forwarding Process, following the = application of the=20 ingress rules (8.6.2). <B><SPAN style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold">It shall = create or=20 update a<o:p></o:p></SPAN></B></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><B><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Dynamic Filtering Entry = (8.8.3)=20 that specifies the <st1:place w:st=3D"on"><st1:PlaceName=20 w:st=3D"on">reception</st1:PlaceName> <st1:PlaceType=20 w:st=3D"on">Port</st1:PlaceType></st1:place> for the frame’s = source address and=20 VID, if<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></B></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><B><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">and only if = </SPAN></FONT></B>the=20 source address is an Individual Address, i.e., is not a Group Address, = the=20 resulting number of<o:p></o:p></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">entries would not exceed the capacity of the = Filtering=20 Database, <B><SPAN style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold">and the filtering = utility=20 criteria for the<o:p></o:p></SPAN></B></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><B><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">receiving <st1:place=20 w:st=3D"on"><st1:PlaceType w:st=3D"on">Bridge</st1:PlaceType> = <st1:PlaceType=20 w:st=3D"on">Port</st1:PlaceType></st1:place> are = met."</SPAN></FONT></B><B><SPAN=20 lang=3DHE dir=3Drtl style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: = bold"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></B></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">The enhanced filtering utility criteria "are = satisfied=20 if at least one VLAN that uses the FID includes the reception Port and = at=20 least one other Port with a Port State of Learning or Forwarding in = its member=20 set, and: a) The operPointToPointMAC parameter is false for the = reception=20 Port; or b) Ingress to the VLAN is permitted through a third Port. = NOTE —The=20 third port can, but is not required to be in the member set.".=20 <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">I think it is clearly stated, but if it is = required to=20 ask the IEEE about the context of forwarding based on a destination = MAC,=20 <B><SPAN style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold">I suggest being more precise and = specify=20 that we are talking on</SPAN></B> <B><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold">point-to-point=20 connections.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></B></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><B><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: = 10pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></B></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Regards,<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Nurit.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">-----Original Message-----<BR>From:=20 gels-bounces@rtg.ietf.org [mailto:gels-bounces@rtg.ietf.org] On Behalf = Of Don=20 Fedyk<BR>Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 23:16<BR>To: Adrian = Farrel;=20 ccamp@ops.ietf.org<BR>Cc: gels@rtg.ietf.org; Wijnen, Bert = (Bert)<BR>Subject:=20 RE: Proposed liaison response to IEEE</SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Hi Adrian<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">The Liaison looks good however it does not = capture a=20 comment I made. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">My understanding of the S-VLAN translation = in IEEE=20 documents and the<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">liaison is that the translation is valid in = the=20 context of forwarding<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">based on a destination MAC. My = interpretation is that=20 V-LAN is optional<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">MAC is not. If I am correct VLAN translation = as=20 specified is not equal<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">to Label switching. The Liaison is clear = about not=20 just the format of<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">'packets on the wire' but the relationship = to the=20 entities such as MAC<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">relay as well. = <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">I think we should also ask in our liaison = for=20 clarification if the<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">S-VLAN translation can be valid by itself = i.e. as a=20 label agnostic to<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">the MAC so there is no=20 confusion.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Thanks,<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Don<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> -----Original=20 Message-----<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org=20 <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> All,<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> The IETF received an unsolicited = liaison on the=20 subject of <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> 802.1 = Ethernet<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> You can see the liaison=20 at<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">>=20 = https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/file358.pdf<o:p></o:p></SP= AN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> The participants on the GELS mailing = list have=20 requested that <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> we respond to this to clarify an=20 issue.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> Here is the draft of a liaison that we = proposed=20 to send. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> Please shout at once if you have any = concerns=20 with this <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> liaison. I intend to ask Bert to send = it on=20 Monday of next week.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> Thanks,<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> <st1:City w:st=3D"on"><st1:place=20 w:st=3D"on">Adrian</st1:place></st1:City><o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> =3D=3D=3D<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> Subject: Response to your liaison "Use = of IEEE=20 802.1Q VLAN tags"<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> Date: Sep = 2006<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> To: = IEEE802.1<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> Tony = Jeffree, IEEE=20 802.1 WG Chair, tony@jeffree.co.uk<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> From: Bert Wijnen, IETF liaison to IETF = liaison=20 to IEEE 802.1<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: = 10pt">> =20 Adrian Farrel, IETF CCAMP Working Group = co-chair<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: = 10pt">> =20 Deborah Brungard, IETF CCAMP Working Group=20 co-chair<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> Cc: Bernard Aboba=20 bernard_aboba@hotmail.com<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: = 10pt">> Ross=20 Callon rcallon@juniper.net<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: = 10pt">> Bill=20 Fenner fenner@research.att.com<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: = 10pt">> CCAMP=20 mailing list ccamp@ops.ietf.org<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: = 10pt">> GELS=20 mailing list gels@rtg.ietf.org<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> Thank you for your very informative and = clarifying liaison on <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> "Use of IEEE 802.1Q VLAN=20 tags".<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> We have a question arising from this = liaison and=20 our reading <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> of the relevant standards documents as=20 follows.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> The liaison says: "Translation of = 802.1Q S-VLAN=20 tags (with 12 <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> bit VIDs) is supported at S-tagged = service=20 interfaces, as an <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> option, by the IEEE Std 802.1ad = Provider Bridging=20 amendment <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> to IEEE Std = 802.1Q."<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> While this text in itself is clear it = leaves open=20 the <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> question of whether "S-tagged Service = interfaces"=20 is the only <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> type of interface where Translation of = 802.1Q=20 S-VLAN tags is <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> supported.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> It is our understanding that IEEE Std = 802.1ad=20 does not <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> preclude the translation of 802.1Q = S-VLAN tags at=20 any <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> S-tagged interface. Thus, this = translation would=20 be allowed <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> at Provider Network Ports, not just at = Customer=20 Network Ports.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> Can you please confirm whether this is = the=20 correct <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> interpretation of the IEEE Std 802.1ad = amendment=20 to the IEEE <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> Std = 802.1Q?<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> Many = thanks,<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> Bert Wijnen, IETF liaison to IEEE=20 802.1<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> Adrian Farrel and Deborah Brungard, = CCAMP Working=20 Group co-chairs<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: = 10pt">_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></SPAN></= FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt">gels mailing = list<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: = 10pt">gels@rtg.ietf.org<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: = 10pt">https://rtg.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gels<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT>= </P> <P class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = size=3D2><SPAN=20 style=3D"FONT-SIZE: = 10pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML= > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C6DD6D.1821739E-- Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 10:40:54 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C6DD72.790106C1" Subject: RE: Proposed liaison response to IEEE Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 13:38:16 +0200 Message-ID: <D3C85156A12AAB4DB23F598007E9826D45F01B@dove.seabridge.co.il> Thread-Topic: Proposed liaison response to IEEE Thread-Index: Acbc7HRnAX/g41+pSkGzWxFpSzGTXAAAF6CAACBecuA= From: "Nurit Sprecher" <nurit.sprecher@SeabridgeNetworks.com> To: "Don Fedyk" <dwfedyk@nortel.com>, "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Cc: <gels@rtg.ietf.org>, "Wijnen, Bert \(Bert\)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>, <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>, "Nurit Sprecher" <nurit.sprecher@SeabridgeNetworks.com> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C6DD72.790106C1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, =20 I think it is a good idea to send the liaison to the IEEE and get once and for all a clear statement that the s-vid translation is supported on each provider bridge port.=20 =20 In addition, the IEEE has recognized that MAC learning is not required for point-to-point VLANs in a bridge. The 802.1Q rev-5 already includes this extension in section 8.7.=20 =20 " The Learning Process receives the source MAC Addresses and VIDs of received frames from the Forwarding Process, following the application of the ingress rules (8.6.2). It shall create or update a Dynamic Filtering Entry (8.8.3) that specifies the reception Port for the frame's source address and VID, if and only if the source address is an Individual Address, i.e., is not a Group Address, the resulting number of entries would not exceed the capacity of the Filtering Database, and the filtering utility criteria for the receiving Bridge Port are met." The enhanced filtering utility criteria "are satisfied if at least one VLAN that uses the FID includes the reception Port and at least one other Port with a Port State of Learning or Forwarding in its member set, and: a) The operPointToPointMAC parameter is false for the reception Port; or b) Ingress to the VLAN is permitted through a third Port. NOTE -The third port can, but is not required to be in the member set.".=20 =20 I think it is clearly stated, but if it is required to ask the IEEE about the context of forwarding based on a destination MAC, I suggest being more precise and specify that we are talking on point-to-point connections. =20 Regards, Nurit. =20 -----Original Message----- From: gels-bounces@rtg.ietf.org [mailto:gels-bounces@rtg.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Don Fedyk Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 23:16 To: Adrian Farrel; ccamp@ops.ietf.org Cc: gels@rtg.ietf.org; Wijnen, Bert (Bert) Subject: RE: Proposed liaison response to IEEE =20 Hi Adrian =20 The Liaison looks good however it does not capture a comment I made. =20 =20 My understanding of the S-VLAN translation in IEEE documents and the liaison is that the translation is valid in the context of forwarding based on a destination MAC. My interpretation is that V-LAN is optional MAC is not. If I am correct VLAN translation as specified is not equal to Label switching. The Liaison is clear about not just the format of 'packets on the wire' but the relationship to the entities such as MAC relay as well. =20 =20 I think we should also ask in our liaison for clarification if the S-VLAN translation can be valid by itself i.e. as a label agnostic to the MAC so there is no confusion. =20 Thanks, Don =20 =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org=20 > All, >=20 > The IETF received an unsolicited liaison on the subject of=20 > 802.1 Ethernet >=20 > You can see the liaison at > https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/file358.pdf >=20 > The participants on the GELS mailing list have requested that=20 > we respond to this to clarify an issue. >=20 > Here is the draft of a liaison that we proposed to send.=20 > Please shout at once if you have any concerns with this=20 > liaison. I intend to ask Bert to send it on Monday of next week. >=20 > Thanks, > Adrian > =3D=3D=3D > Subject: Response to your liaison "Use of IEEE 802.1Q VLAN tags" >=20 > Date: Sep 2006 > To: IEEE802.1 > Tony Jeffree, IEEE 802.1 WG Chair, tony@jeffree.co.uk >=20 > From: Bert Wijnen, IETF liaison to IETF liaison to IEEE 802.1 > Adrian Farrel, IETF CCAMP Working Group co-chair > Deborah Brungard, IETF CCAMP Working Group co-chair >=20 > Cc: Bernard Aboba bernard_aboba@hotmail.com > Ross Callon rcallon@juniper.net > Bill Fenner fenner@research.att.com > CCAMP mailing list ccamp@ops.ietf.org > GELS mailing list gels@rtg.ietf.org >=20 > Thank you for your very informative and clarifying liaison on=20 > "Use of IEEE 802.1Q VLAN tags". >=20 > We have a question arising from this liaison and our reading=20 > of the relevant standards documents as follows. >=20 > The liaison says: "Translation of 802.1Q S-VLAN tags (with 12=20 > bit VIDs) is supported at S-tagged service interfaces, as an=20 > option, by the IEEE Std 802.1ad Provider Bridging amendment=20 > to IEEE Std 802.1Q." >=20 > While this text in itself is clear it leaves open the=20 > question of whether "S-tagged Service interfaces" is the only=20 > type of interface where Translation of 802.1Q S-VLAN tags is=20 > supported. >=20 > It is our understanding that IEEE Std 802.1ad does not=20 > preclude the translation of 802.1Q S-VLAN tags at any=20 > S-tagged interface. Thus, this translation would be allowed=20 > at Provider Network Ports, not just at Customer Network Ports. >=20 > Can you please confirm whether this is the correct=20 > interpretation of the IEEE Std 802.1ad amendment to the IEEE=20 > Std 802.1Q? >=20 > Many thanks, >=20 > Bert Wijnen, IETF liaison to IEEE 802.1 > Adrian Farrel and Deborah Brungard, CCAMP Working Group co-chairs >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 =20 _______________________________________________ gels mailing list gels@rtg.ietf.org https://rtg.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gels =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C6DD72.790106C1 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" = xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" = xmlns:st1=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" = xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <meta http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; = charset=3Dus-ascii"> <meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)"> <o:SmartTagType = namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name=3D"PlaceType"/> <o:SmartTagType = namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name=3D"PlaceName"/> <o:SmartTagType = namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name=3D"City" = downloadurl=3D"http://www.5iamas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"/> <o:SmartTagType = namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name=3D"place" downloadurl=3D"http://www.5iantlavalamp.com/"/> <!--[if !mso]> <style> st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) } </style> <![endif]--> <style> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {color:blue; text-decoration:underline;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple; text-decoration:underline;} p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText {margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Courier New";} @page Section1 {size:595.3pt 841.9pt; margin:1.0in 69.6pt 1.0in 69.6pt;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style> </head> <body lang=3DEN-US link=3Dblue vlink=3Dpurple> <div class=3DSection1 dir=3DRTL> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>Hi,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>I think it is a good idea to send the liaison = to the IEEE and get once and for all a clear statement that the s-vid = translation is supported on each provider bridge port. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>In addition, the IEEE has recognized that = <b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>MAC learning is not required for = point-to-point VLANs in a bridge</span></b>. <b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>The 802.1Q = rev-5 already includes this extension in section 8.7</span></b>. = <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>" The Learning Process receives the = source MAC Addresses and VIDs of received frames from = the<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>Forwarding Process, following the application = of the ingress rules (8.6.2). <b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>It shall = create or update a<o:p></o:p></span></b></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><b><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:bold'>Dynamic Filtering Entry = (8.8.3) that specifies the <st1:place w:st=3D"on"><st1:PlaceName = w:st=3D"on">reception</st1:PlaceName> <st1:PlaceType w:st=3D"on">Port</st1:PlaceType></st1:place> for the frame’s source address and VID, = if<o:p></o:p></span></font></b></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><b><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:bold'>and only if = </span></font></b>the source address is an Individual Address, i.e., is not a Group Address, = the resulting number of<o:p></o:p></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>entries would not exceed the capacity of the = Filtering Database, <b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>and the filtering utility = criteria for the<o:p></o:p></span></b></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><b><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:bold'>receiving <st1:place = w:st=3D"on"><st1:PlaceType w:st=3D"on">Bridge</st1:PlaceType> <st1:PlaceType = w:st=3D"on">Port</st1:PlaceType></st1:place> are met."</span></font></b><b><span lang=3DHE dir=3DRTL = style=3D'font-weight: bold'><o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>The enhanced filtering utility criteria = "are satisfied if at least one VLAN that uses the FID includes the reception = Port and at least one other Port with a Port State of Learning or Forwarding = in its member set, and: a) The operPointToPointMAC parameter is false for the reception Port; or b) Ingress to the VLAN is permitted through a third = Port. NOTE —The third port can, but is not required to be in the member = set.". <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>I think it is clearly stated, but if it is = required to ask the IEEE about the context of forwarding based on a destination MAC, = <b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>I suggest being more precise and specify that = we are talking on</span></b> <b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>point-to-point connections.<o:p></o:p></span></b></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><b><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:bold'><o:p> </o:p></span></fon= t></b></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>Nurit.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>-----Original Message-----<br> From: gels-bounces@rtg.ietf.org [mailto:gels-bounces@rtg.ietf.org] On = Behalf Of Don Fedyk<br> Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 23:16<br> To: Adrian Farrel; ccamp@ops.ietf.org<br> Cc: gels@rtg.ietf.org; Wijnen, Bert (Bert)<br> Subject: RE: Proposed liaison response to IEEE</span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>Hi Adrian<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>The Liaison looks good however it does not = capture a comment I made. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>My understanding of the S-VLAN translation in = IEEE documents and the<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>liaison is that the translation is valid in = the context of forwarding<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>based on a destination MAC. My interpretation = is that V-LAN is optional<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>MAC is not. If I am correct VLAN translation = as specified is not equal<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>to Label switching. The Liaison is clear = about not just the format of<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>'packets on the wire' but the relationship to = the entities such as MAC<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>relay as well. = <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>I think we should also ask in our liaison for clarification if the<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>S-VLAN translation can be valid by itself = i.e. as a label agnostic to<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>the MAC so there is no = confusion.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>Don<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> -----Original = Message-----<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org = <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> All,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> The IETF received an unsolicited liaison = on the subject of <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> 802.1 = Ethernet<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> You can see the liaison = at<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> = https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/file358.pdf<o:p></o:p></sp= an></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> The participants on the GELS mailing = list have requested that <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> we respond to this to clarify an = issue.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> Here is the draft of a liaison that we = proposed to send. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> Please shout at once if you have any = concerns with this <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> liaison. I intend to ask Bert to send it = on Monday of next week.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> Thanks,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> <st1:City w:st=3D"on"><st1:place = w:st=3D"on">Adrian</st1:place></st1:City><o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> =3D=3D=3D<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> Subject: Response to your liaison = "Use of IEEE 802.1Q VLAN tags"<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> Date: Sep = 2006<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> To: = IEEE802.1<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> Tony = Jeffree, IEEE 802.1 WG Chair, tony@jeffree.co.uk<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> From: Bert Wijnen, IETF liaison to IETF = liaison to IEEE 802.1<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> = Adrian Farrel, IETF CCAMP Working Group = co-chair<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> = Deborah Brungard, IETF CCAMP Working Group = co-chair<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> Cc: Bernard Aboba = bernard_aboba@hotmail.com<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> = Ross Callon rcallon@juniper.net<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> = Bill Fenner fenner@research.att.com<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> = CCAMP mailing list ccamp@ops.ietf.org<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> = GELS mailing list gels@rtg.ietf.org<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> Thank you for your very informative and clarifying liaison on <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> "Use of IEEE 802.1Q VLAN = tags".<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> We have a question arising from this = liaison and our reading <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> of the relevant standards documents as = follows.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> The liaison says: "Translation of = 802.1Q S-VLAN tags (with 12 <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> bit VIDs) is supported at S-tagged = service interfaces, as an <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> option, by the IEEE Std 802.1ad Provider = Bridging amendment <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> to IEEE Std = 802.1Q."<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> While this text in itself is clear it = leaves open the <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> question of whether "S-tagged = Service interfaces" is the only <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> type of interface where Translation of = 802.1Q S-VLAN tags is <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> supported.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> It is our understanding that IEEE Std = 802.1ad does not <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> preclude the translation of 802.1Q = S-VLAN tags at any <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> S-tagged interface. Thus, this = translation would be allowed <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> at Provider Network Ports, not just at = Customer Network Ports.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> Can you please confirm whether this is = the correct <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> interpretation of the IEEE Std 802.1ad = amendment to the IEEE <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> Std 802.1Q?<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> Many = thanks,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> Bert Wijnen, IETF liaison to IEEE = 802.1<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> Adrian Farrel and Deborah Brungard, = CCAMP Working Group co-chairs<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>______________________________________________= _<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>gels mailing = list<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>gels@rtg.ietf.org<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>= <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>https://rtg.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gels<o:p= ></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoPlainText dir=3DLTR><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier = New"><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p> </div> </body> </html> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C6DD72.790106C1-- Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 21:17:15 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Proposed liaison response to IEEE Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 17:15:44 -0400 Message-ID: <34B3EAA5B3066A42914D28C5ECF5FEA40AB84A68@zrtphxm2.corp.nortel.com> Thread-Topic: Proposed liaison response to IEEE Thread-Index: Acbc7HRnAX/g41+pSkGzWxFpSzGTXAAAF6CA From: "Don Fedyk" <dwfedyk@nortel.com> To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Cc: <gels@rtg.ietf.org>, "Wijnen, Bert \(Bert\)" <bwijnen@lucent.com> Hi Adrian The Liaison looks good however it does not capture a comment I made. =20 My understanding of the S-VLAN translation in IEEE documents and the liaison is that the translation is valid in the context of forwarding based on a destination MAC. My interpretation is that V-LAN is optional MAC is not. If I am correct VLAN translation as specified is not equal to Label switching. The Liaison is clear about not just the format of 'packets on the wire' but the relationship to the entities such as MAC relay as well. =20 I think we should also ask in our liaison for clarification if the S-VLAN translation can be valid by itself i.e. as a label agnostic to the MAC so there is no confusion. Thanks, Don > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org=20 > All, >=20 > The IETF received an unsolicited liaison on the subject of=20 > 802.1 Ethernet >=20 > You can see the liaison at > https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/file358.pdf >=20 > The participants on the GELS mailing list have requested that=20 > we respond to this to clarify an issue. >=20 > Here is the draft of a liaison that we proposed to send.=20 > Please shout at once if you have any concerns with this=20 > liaison. I intend to ask Bert to send it on Monday of next week. >=20 > Thanks, > Adrian > =3D=3D=3D > Subject: Response to your liaison "Use of IEEE 802.1Q VLAN tags" >=20 > Date: Sep 2006 > To: IEEE802.1 > Tony Jeffree, IEEE 802.1 WG Chair, tony@jeffree.co.uk >=20 > From: Bert Wijnen, IETF liaison to IETF liaison to IEEE 802.1 > Adrian Farrel, IETF CCAMP Working Group co-chair > Deborah Brungard, IETF CCAMP Working Group co-chair >=20 > Cc: Bernard Aboba bernard_aboba@hotmail.com > Ross Callon rcallon@juniper.net > Bill Fenner fenner@research.att.com > CCAMP mailing list ccamp@ops.ietf.org > GELS mailing list gels@rtg.ietf.org >=20 > Thank you for your very informative and clarifying liaison on=20 > "Use of IEEE 802.1Q VLAN tags". >=20 > We have a question arising from this liaison and our reading=20 > of the relevant standards documents as follows. >=20 > The liaison says: "Translation of 802.1Q S-VLAN tags (with 12=20 > bit VIDs) is supported at S-tagged service interfaces, as an=20 > option, by the IEEE Std 802.1ad Provider Bridging amendment=20 > to IEEE Std 802.1Q." >=20 > While this text in itself is clear it leaves open the=20 > question of whether "S-tagged Service interfaces" is the only=20 > type of interface where Translation of 802.1Q S-VLAN tags is=20 > supported. >=20 > It is our understanding that IEEE Std 802.1ad does not=20 > preclude the translation of 802.1Q S-VLAN tags at any=20 > S-tagged interface. Thus, this translation would be allowed=20 > at Provider Network Ports, not just at Customer Network Ports. >=20 > Can you please confirm whether this is the correct=20 > interpretation of the IEEE Std 802.1ad amendment to the IEEE=20 > Std 802.1Q? >=20 > Many thanks, >=20 > Bert Wijnen, IETF liaison to IEEE 802.1 > Adrian Farrel and Deborah Brungard, CCAMP Working Group co-chairs >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 19:39:05 +0000 Message-ID: <0d9701c6dcec$4a9948b0$0a23fea9@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> To: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Cc: <gels@rtg.ietf.org>, "Wijnen, Bert \(Bert\)" <bwijnen@lucent.com> Subject: Proposed liaison response to IEEE Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 20:37:49 +0100 Organization: Old Dog Consulting MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit All, The IETF received an unsolicited liaison on the subject of 802.1 Ethernet You can see the liaison at https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/file358.pdf The participants on the GELS mailing list have requested that we respond to this to clarify an issue. Here is the draft of a liaison that we proposed to send. Please shout at once if you have any concerns with this liaison. I intend to ask Bert to send it on Monday of next week. Thanks, Adrian === Subject: Response to your liaison "Use of IEEE 802.1Q VLAN tags" Date: Sep 2006 To: IEEE802.1 Tony Jeffree, IEEE 802.1 WG Chair, tony@jeffree.co.uk From: Bert Wijnen, IETF liaison to IETF liaison to IEEE 802.1 Adrian Farrel, IETF CCAMP Working Group co-chair Deborah Brungard, IETF CCAMP Working Group co-chair Cc: Bernard Aboba bernard_aboba@hotmail.com Ross Callon rcallon@juniper.net Bill Fenner fenner@research.att.com CCAMP mailing list ccamp@ops.ietf.org GELS mailing list gels@rtg.ietf.org Thank you for your very informative and clarifying liaison on "Use of IEEE 802.1Q VLAN tags". We have a question arising from this liaison and our reading of the relevant standards documents as follows. The liaison says: "Translation of 802.1Q S-VLAN tags (with 12 bit VIDs) is supported at S-tagged service interfaces, as an option, by the IEEE Std 802.1ad Provider Bridging amendment to IEEE Std 802.1Q." While this text in itself is clear it leaves open the question of whether "S-tagged Service interfaces" is the only type of interface where Translation of 802.1Q S-VLAN tags is supported. It is our understanding that IEEE Std 802.1ad does not preclude the translation of 802.1Q S-VLAN tags at any S-tagged interface. Thus, this translation would be allowed at Provider Network Ports, not just at Customer Network Ports. Can you please confirm whether this is the correct interpretation of the IEEE Std 802.1ad amendment to the IEEE Std 802.1Q? Many thanks, Bert Wijnen, IETF liaison to IEEE 802.1 Adrian Farrel and Deborah Brungard, CCAMP Working Group co-chairs Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 18:17:03 +0000 To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org> From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> Subject: Last Call: 'GMPLS Based Segment Recovery' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-segment-recovery) Reply-To: iesg@ietf.org Cc: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Message-Id: <E1GQ6cj-0000Hf-NM@stiedprstage1.ietf.org> Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 14:16:41 -0400 The IESG has received a request from the Common Control and Measurement Plane WG to consider the following document: - 'GMPLS Based Segment Recovery ' <draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-segment-recovery-02.txt> as a Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send any comments to the iesg@ietf.org or ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2006-10-04. The file can be obtained via http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-segment-recovery-02.txt Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 18:16:44 +0000 To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org> From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> Subject: Last Call: 'RSVP-TE Extensions in support of End-to-End Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)-based Recovery' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-e2e-signaling) Reply-To: iesg@ietf.org Cc: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Message-Id: <E1GQ6bu-0000E3-EK@stiedprstage1.ietf.org> Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 14:15:50 -0400 The IESG has received a request from the Common Control and Measurement Plane WG to consider the following document: - 'RSVP-TE Extensions in support of End-to-End Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)-based Recovery ' <draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-e2e-signaling-03.txt> as a Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send any comments to the iesg@ietf.org or ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2006-10-04. The file can be obtained via http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-e2e-signaling-03.txt Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 18:16:35 +0000 To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org> From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> Subject: Last Call: 'Routing extensions for discovery of Multiprotocol (MPLS) Label Switch Router (LSR) Traffic Engineering (TE) mesh membership' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-ccamp-automesh) Reply-To: iesg@ietf.org Cc: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Message-Id: <E1GQ6ah-00009p-7l@stiedprstage1.ietf.org> Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 14:14:35 -0400 The IESG has received a request from the Common Control and Measurement Plane WG to consider the following document: - 'Routing extensions for discovery of Multiprotocol (MPLS) Label Switch Router (LSR) Traffic Engineering (TE) mesh membership ' <draft-ietf-ccamp-automesh-02.txt> as a Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send any comments to the iesg@ietf.org or ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2006-10-04. The file can be obtained via http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-automesh-02.txt Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 03:04:13 +0000 To: "Olufemi Komolafe" <femi@dcs.gla.ac.uk> Cc: "ccamp" <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>, danli@huawei.com, gjhhit@huawei.com, owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: RE: Comments on draft-li-ccamp-multinodes-gr-proc-00.txt, MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <OF18B7FB27.A1E6B961-ON482571EF.000584E4-482571EF.00109783@zte.com.cn> From: jiang.weilian@zte.com.cn Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 10:57:59 +0800 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_mixed 00109675482571EF_=" --=_mixed 00109675482571EF_= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 00109677482571EF_=" --=_alternative 00109677482571EF_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="GB2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 SGVsbG8sIGV2ZXJ5b25lIQ0KDQpXZSBoYXZlIHB1dCBmb3J3YXJkIGEgbWVjaGFuaXNtIHRvIHNv bHZlIHRoaXMgcHJvYmxlbSBpbiBvdXIgDQpkcmFmdCAiZHJhZnQtamlhbi1jY2FtcC1tdWx0aW5v ZGVzLXJzdnAtcmVzdGFydC0wMCIgbGFzdCB5ZWFyLg0KDQpXZSB0aGluayB0aGF0IGlmIG11bHRp cGxlIGFkamFjZW50IG5vZGVzIHJlc3RhcnRlZCBuZWFybHkgYXQgDQp0aGUgc2FtZSB0aW1lLCB0 aGVzZSBub2RlcyBjYW5ub3QgbGVhcm4gYWJvdXQgdGhlIEdSIGNhcGFiaWxpdHkgDQpmcm9tIGVh Y2ggb3RoZXIuIA0KDQpUaGUga2V5IG9mIHRoaXMgcHJvYmxlbSBpcyB0aGF0IGhvdyByZXN0YXJ0 ZWQgbm9kZSBhY3RpdmVseSANCmluZm9ybSBpdHMgR1IoR3JhY2VmdWwgUmVzdGFydCkgY2FwYWJp bGl0eSB0byBuZWlnaGJvciBub2RlcywgDQplc3BlY2lhbGx5IHNvbWUgbmVpZ2hib3Igbm9kZXMg YXJlIHJlc3RhcnRlZCBub2RlcyB0b28uDQoNCklmIHlvdSBjb25jZXJuIG91ciBtZWNoYW5pc20s IHBsZWFzZSByZWFkIG91ciBkcmFmdCBmb3IgZGV0YWlsLg0KDQoNCg0KDQpSZWdhcmQsDQpKaWFu ZyBXZWlsaWFuDQouLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Lg0KQWRkOiAgIE5vLjY4IFppamluZ2h1YSBSZCxZdWh1YXRhaSBEaXN0cmljdCwgDQogICAgICAg IE5hbmppbmcuIFAuUi5DaGluYS4gDQpaaXA6ICAgMjEwMDEyIA0KVGVsOiAgIDAwODYtMjUtNTI4 NzE2NDQgDQpNYWlsOiAgamlhbmcud2VpbGlhbkB6dGUuY29tLmNuIA0KLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uIA0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCiJPbHVmZW1pIEtvbW9s YWZlIiA8ZmVtaUBkY3MuZ2xhLmFjLnVrPg0Kt6K8/sjLo7ogb3duZXItY2NhbXBAb3BzLmlldGYu b3JnDQoNCjIwMDYtMDktMTkgMjA6NDUNCiANCiAgICAgICAgytW8/sjLo7ogICAgICAgIDxkYW5s aUBodWF3ZWkuY29tPiwgPGdqaGhpdEBodWF3ZWkuY29tPg0KICAgICAgICCzrcvNo7ogICJjY2Ft cCIgPGNjYW1wQG9wcy5pZXRmLm9yZz4NCiAgICAgICAg1vfM4qO6ICBSRTogQ29tbWVudHMgb24g ZHJhZnQtbGktY2NhbXAtbXVsdGlub2Rlcy1nci1wcm9jLTAwLnR4dCwNCg0KDQpIaSwNCiANCldo aWxlIHJlYWRpbmcgdGhpcyBkcmFmdCBpdCBvY2N1cnJlZCB0byBtZSB0aGF0IHBlcmhhcHMgaXQg bWlnaHQgYmUgbW9yZSANCnVzZWZ1bCB0byBhcHByb2FjaCB0aGlzIHRvcGljIGZyb20gdGhlIHBl cnNwZWN0aXZlIG9mIKGwV2hhdCBjYW4gZ28gd3JvbmcgDQpkdXJpbmcgZ3JhY2VmdWwgcmVzdGFy dCwgd2hhdCBhcmUgdGhlIGNvbnNlcXVlbmNlcyBhbmQgaG93IGNhbiBpdCBiZSANCmZpeGVkP6Gx IHJhdGhlciB0aGFuIGZvY3VzaW5nIG9uIHRoZSBuYXJyb3dlciB0b3BpYyBvZiBtdWx0aXBsZSAN CnNpbXVsdGFuZW91cyBub2RhbCBmYXVsdHMuDQogDQpGb3IgZXhhbXBsZSwgU2NlbmFyaW8gMSBp biB0aGUgZHJhZnQgbWF5IGJlIGludGVycHJldGVkIGFzIKGwV2hhdCBzaG91bGQgDQpoYXBwZW4g aWYgYSAobm9uLWluZ3Jlc3MpIHJlc3RhcnRpbmcgbm9kZSBmYWlscyB0byBnZXQgYSBSZWNvdmVy eVBhdGggDQptZXNzYWdlIGZyb20gaXRzIGRvd25zdHJlYW0gbmVpZ2hib3VyP6GxLCBTY2VuYXJp byAyIGlzIKGwV2hhdCBzaG91bGQgDQpoYXBwZW4gaWYgYSAobm9uLWluZ3Jlc3MpIHJlc3RhcnRp bmcgbm9kZSBmYWlscyB0byBnZXQgYSBQYXRoIG1lc3NhZ2UgZnJvbSANCml0cyB1cHN0cmVhbSBu ZWlnaGJvdXI/obEgYW5kIHNvIG9uLiAgV2hldGhlciBlYWNoIG9mIHRoZXNlIHNjZW5hcmlvcyAN CmFyaXNlcyBkdWUgdG8gbXVsdGlwbGUgc2ltdWx0YW5lb3VzIG5vZGFsIGZhdWx0cyAoYXMgaW4g dGhlIGRyYWZ0KSBvciBhbnkgDQpvdGhlciByZWFzb24gKGUuZy4gYSBzdWJzZXF1ZW50IGNvbnRy b2wgY2hhbm5lbCBmYWlsdXJlLCByZXN0YXJ0aW5nIG5vZGUgDQpiZWluZyBpbnVuZGF0ZWQgd2l0 aCBtZXNzYWdlcyBldGMuKSBpcywgaW4gbXkgb3Bpbmlvbiwgc2Vjb25kYXJ5LiAgSSB0aGluayAN CnRoZSBrZXkgdGhpbmcgaXMgdG8gaWRlbnRpZnkgdGhlIHBvdGVudGlhbCBwcm9ibGVtcyBhbmQg c3VnZ2VzdCANCmFwcHJvcHJpYXRlIHJlbWVkaWFsIGFjdGlvbnMsIHdoZXJlIHRoZSBhdXRob3Jz IHRoaW5rIGV4aXN0aW5nIA0KZG9jdW1lbnRhdGlvbiBpcyBpbnN1ZmZpY2llbnQsIHJhdGhlciB0 aGFuIGZvY3VzaW5nIG9uIDUgZGlmZmVyZW50IA0KcGVybXV0YXRpb25zIG9mIG11bHRpcGxlIG5v ZGUgZ3JhY2VmdWwgcmVzdGFydC4gDQogDQpSZWdhcmRzLA0KRmVtaQ0KIA0KIA0KDQpGcm9tOiBv d25lci1jY2FtcEBvcHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcgW21haWx0bzpvd25lci1jY2FtcEBvcHMuaWV0Zi5vcmdd IE9uIEJlaGFsZiANCk9mIFphZmFyIEFsaSAoemFsaSkNClNlbnQ6IDEwIEp1bHkgMjAwNiAwNDow NA0KVG86IGRhbmxpQGh1YXdlaS5jb207IGdqaGhpdEBodWF3ZWkuY29tDQpDYzogY2NhbXANClN1 YmplY3Q6IENvbW1lbnRzIG9uIGRyYWZ0LWxpLWNjYW1wLW11bHRpbm9kZXMtZ3ItcHJvYy0wMC50 eHQsIA0KIA0KRGVhciBBdXRob3JzLCANCiANClRoaXMgaXMgRGVqYS12dSB0byBtZS4uLi4gDQog DQpEcmFmdCBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLWNjYW1wLXJzdnAtcmVzdGFydC1leHQtMDUudHh0IGFjdHVhbGx5 IGhhZCBhIHNlY3Rpb24gb24gDQptdWx0aXBsZSBub2RlIHJlc3RhcnQgY2FzZSBhbmQgd2FzIHJl amVjdGVkIGJ5IHRoZSBXRyBhcyBhZGRyZXNzaW5nIA0KbXVsdGlwbGUgbm9kZSByZXN0YXJ0IGNh c2UgaXMgTk9UIGEgZ29hbCAoc3VmZmVycyBmcm9tIHRoZSBsYXcgb2YgDQpkaW1pbmlzaGluZyBy ZXR1cm4pLiBJbiBvdGhlciB3b3JkcyB0aGUgZm9sbG93aW5nIHN0YXRlbWVudCBpbiB0aGUgSUQt IA0KIA0KICAgIltHUi1FWFRdIGFsc28gZXh0ZW5kcyB0aGUgSGVsbG8gbWVzc2FnZSB0byBleGNo YW5nZSBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiBhYm91dCANCiAgIHRoZSBhYmlsaXR5IHRvIHN1cHBvcnQgdGhlIFJl Y292ZXJ5UGF0aCBtZXNzYWdlLiANCiAgIFRoZSBleGFtcGxlcyBhbmQgcHJvY2VkdXJlcyBpbiBb R1ItRVhUXSBmb2N1cyBvbiB0aGUgZGVzY3JpcHRpb24gb2YgYSANCiAgIHNpbmdsZSBub2RlIHJl c3RhcnQgd2hlbiBhZGphY2VudCBuZXR3b3JrIG5vZGVzIGFyZSBvcGVyYXRpdmUuIA0KICAgQWx0 aG91Z2ggdGhlIHByb2NlZHVyZXMgYXJlIGVxdWFsbHkgYXBwbGljYWJsZSB0byBtdWx0aS1ub2Rl IHJlc3RhcnRzLCANCiAgIG5vIGRldGFpbGVkIGV4cGxhbmF0aW9uIGlzIHByb3ZpZGVkLiIgDQog DQppcyBub3QgYWNjdXJhdGUuIFBsZWFzZSBzZWUgc2VjdGlvbiA0IG9uIHRoZSBlYXJsaWVyIHZl cnNpb24gb2YgdGhlIA0KW0dSLUVYVF0sIA0KaHR0cDovL3d3dy5mYXFzLm9yZy9mdHAvcHViL2lu dGVybmV0LWRyYWZ0cy9kcmFmdC1yYWhtYW4tY2NhbXAtcnN2cC1yZXN0YXJ0LWV4dGVuc2lvbnMt MDAudHh0DQouIA0KIA0KVGhhbmtzDQogDQpSZWdhcmRzLi4uIFphZmFyIA0KIA0KDQoNCi0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tDQpaVEUg SW5mb3JtYXRpb24gU2VjdXJpdHkgTm90aWNlOiBUaGUgaW5mb3JtYXRpb24gY29udGFpbmVkIGlu IHRoaXMgbWFpbCBpcyANCnNvbGVseSBwcm9wZXJ0eSBvZiB0aGUgc2VuZGVyJ3Mgb3JnYW5pemF0 aW9uLiBUaGlzIG1haWwgY29tbXVuaWNhdGlvbiBpcyANCmNvbmZpZGVudGlhbC4gUmVjaXBpZW50 cyBuYW1lZCBhYm92ZSBhcmUgb2JsaWdhdGVkIHRvIG1haW50YWluIHNlY3JlY3kgYW5kIA0KYXJl IG5vdCBwZXJtaXR0ZWQgdG8gZGlzY2xvc2UgdGhlIGNvbnRlbnRzIG9mIHRoaXMgY29tbXVuaWNh dGlvbiB0byANCm90aGVycy4NClRoaXMgZW1haWwgYW5kIGFueSBmaWxlcyB0cmFuc21pdHRlZCB3 aXRoIGl0IGFyZSBjb25maWRlbnRpYWwgYW5kIGludGVuZGVkIA0Kc29sZWx5IGZvciB0aGUgdXNl IG9mIHRoZSBpbmRpdmlkdWFsIG9yIGVudGl0eSB0byB3aG9tIHRoZXkgYXJlIGFkZHJlc3NlZC4g DQpJZiB5b3UgaGF2ZSByZWNlaXZlZCB0aGlzIGVtYWlsIGluIGVycm9yIHBsZWFzZSBub3RpZnkg dGhlIG9yaWdpbmF0b3Igb2YgDQp0aGUgbWVzc2FnZS4gQW55IHZpZXdzIGV4cHJlc3NlZCBpbiB0 aGlzIG1lc3NhZ2UgYXJlIHRob3NlIG9mIHRoZSANCmluZGl2aWR1YWwgc2VuZGVyLg0KVGhpcyBt ZXNzYWdlIGhhcyBiZWVuIHNjYW5uZWQgZm9yIHZpcnVzZXMgYW5kIFNwYW0gYnkgWlRFIEFudGkt U3BhbSANCnN5c3RlbS4NCg0KDQoNCg0KLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0NClpURSBJbmZvcm1hdGlvbiBTZWN1cml0eSBOb3RpY2U6 IFRoZSBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiBjb250YWluZWQgaW4gdGhpcyBtYWlsIGlzIHNvbGVseSBwcm9wZXJ0 eSBvZiB0aGUgc2VuZGVyJ3Mgb3JnYW5pemF0aW9uLiBUaGlzIG1haWwgY29tbXVuaWNhdGlvbiBp cyBjb25maWRlbnRpYWwuIFJlY2lwaWVudHMgbmFtZWQgYWJvdmUgYXJlIG9ibGlnYXRlZCB0byBt YWludGFpbiBzZWNyZWN5IGFuZCBhcmUgbm90IHBlcm1pdHRlZCB0byBkaXNjbG9zZSB0aGUgY29u dGVudHMgb2YgdGhpcyBjb21tdW5pY2F0aW9uIHRvIG90aGVycy4NClRoaXMgZW1haWwgYW5kIGFu eSBmaWxlcyB0cmFuc21pdHRlZCB3aXRoIGl0IGFyZSBjb25maWRlbnRpYWwgYW5kIGludGVuZGVk IHNvbGVseSBmb3IgdGhlIHVzZSBvZiB0aGUgaW5kaXZpZHVhbCBvciBlbnRpdHkgdG8gd2hvbSB0 aGV5IGFyZSBhZGRyZXNzZWQuIElmIHlvdSBoYXZlIHJlY2VpdmVkIHRoaXMgZW1haWwgaW4gZXJy b3IgcGxlYXNlIG5vdGlmeSB0aGUgb3JpZ2luYXRvciBvZiB0aGUgbWVzc2FnZS4gQW55IHZpZXdz IGV4cHJlc3NlZCBpbiB0aGlzIG1lc3NhZ2UgYXJlIHRob3NlIG9mIHRoZSBpbmRpdmlkdWFsIHNl bmRlci4NClRoaXMgbWVzc2FnZSBoYXMgYmVlbiBzY2FubmVkIGZvciB2aXJ1c2VzIGFuZCBTcGFt IGJ5IFpURSBBbnRpLVNwYW0gc3lzdGVtLg0K --=_alternative 00109677482571EF_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="GB2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 DQo8YnI+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0yIGZhY2U9InNhbnMtc2VyaWYiPkhlbGxvLCBldmVyeW9uZSE8L2Zv bnQ+DQo8YnI+DQo8YnI+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0yIGZhY2U9InNhbnMtc2VyaWYiPldlIGhhdmUgcHV0 IGZvcndhcmQgYSBtZWNoYW5pc20gdG8gc29sdmUNCnRoaXMgcHJvYmxlbSBpbiBvdXIgPC9mb250 Pg0KPGJyPjxmb250IHNpemU9MiBmYWNlPSJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIj5kcmFmdCAmcXVvdDtkcmFmdC1q aWFuLWNjYW1wLW11bHRpbm9kZXMtcnN2cC1yZXN0YXJ0LTAwJnF1b3Q7DQpsYXN0IHllYXIuPC9m b250Pg0KPGJyPg0KPGJyPjxmb250IHNpemU9MiBmYWNlPSJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIj5XZSB0aGluayB0 aGF0IGlmIG11bHRpcGxlIGFkamFjZW50IG5vZGVzDQpyZXN0YXJ0ZWQgbmVhcmx5IGF0IDwvZm9u dD4NCjxicj48Zm9udCBzaXplPTIgZmFjZT0ic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI+dGhlIHNhbWUgdGltZSwgdGhl c2Ugbm9kZXMgY2Fubm90IGxlYXJuDQphYm91dCB0aGUgR1IgY2FwYWJpbGl0eSA8L2ZvbnQ+DQo8 YnI+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0yIGZhY2U9InNhbnMtc2VyaWYiPmZyb20gZWFjaCBvdGhlci4gPC9mb250 Pg0KPGJyPg0KPGJyPjxmb250IHNpemU9MiBmYWNlPSJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIj5UaGUga2V5IG9mIHRo aXMgcHJvYmxlbSBpcyB0aGF0IGhvdw0KcmVzdGFydGVkIG5vZGUgYWN0aXZlbHkgPC9mb250Pg0K PGJyPjxmb250IHNpemU9MiBmYWNlPSJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIj5pbmZvcm0gaXRzIEdSKEdyYWNlZnVs IFJlc3RhcnQpIGNhcGFiaWxpdHkNCnRvIG5laWdoYm9yIG5vZGVzLCA8L2ZvbnQ+DQo8YnI+PGZv bnQgc2l6ZT0yIGZhY2U9InNhbnMtc2VyaWYiPmVzcGVjaWFsbHkgc29tZSBuZWlnaGJvciBub2Rl cyBhcmUgcmVzdGFydGVkDQpub2RlcyB0b28uPC9mb250Pg0KPGJyPg0KPGJyPjxmb250IHNpemU9 MiBmYWNlPSJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIj5JZiB5b3UgY29uY2VybiBvdXIgbWVjaGFuaXNtLCBwbGVhc2UN CnJlYWQgb3VyIGRyYWZ0IGZvciBkZXRhaWwuPC9mb250Pg0KPGJyPg0KPGJyPg0KPGJyPg0KPGJy Pg0KPGJyPjxmb250IHNpemU9MiBmYWNlPSJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIj5SZWdhcmQsPGJyPg0KSmlhbmcg V2VpbGlhbjwvZm9udD4NCjxicj48Zm9udCBzaXplPTIgZmFjZT0ic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI+Li4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi48YnI+DQpBZGQ6ICZuYnNw OyBOby42OCBaaWppbmdodWEgUmQsWXVodWF0YWkgRGlzdHJpY3QsIDxicj4NCiAmbmJzcDsgJm5i c3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDtOYW5qaW5nLiBQLlIuQ2hpbmEuIDxicj4NClppcDogJm5ic3A7IDIx MDAxMiA8YnI+DQpUZWw6ICZuYnNwOyAwMDg2LTI1LTUyODcxNjQ0IDxicj4NCk1haWw6ICZuYnNw O2ppYW5nLndlaWxpYW5AenRlLmNvbS5jbiA8YnI+DQouLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4u Li4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4uLi4gPGJyPg0KPC9mb250Pg0KPGJyPg0KPGJyPg0KPGJyPg0KPHRh YmxlIHdpZHRoPTEwMCU+DQo8dHIgdmFsaWduPXRvcD4NCjx0ZD4NCjx0ZD48Zm9udCBzaXplPTEg ZmFjZT0ic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI+PGI+JnF1b3Q7T2x1ZmVtaSBLb21vbGFmZSZxdW90OyAmbHQ7ZmVt aUBkY3MuZ2xhLmFjLnVrJmd0OzwvYj48L2ZvbnQ+DQo8YnI+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0xIGZhY2U9InNh bnMtc2VyaWYiPreivP7Iy6O6IG93bmVyLWNjYW1wQG9wcy5pZXRmLm9yZzwvZm9udD4NCjxicj4N CjxwPjxmb250IHNpemU9MSBmYWNlPSJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIj4yMDA2LTA5LTE5IDIwOjQ1PC9mb250 Pg0KPHRkPjxmb250IHNpemU9MSBmYWNlPSJBcmlhbCI+Jm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5i c3A7IDwvZm9udD4NCjxicj48Zm9udCBzaXplPTEgZmFjZT0ic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI+Jm5ic3A7ICZu YnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7IMrVvP7Iy6O6DQombmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsm bHQ7ZGFubGlAaHVhd2VpLmNvbSZndDssICZsdDtnamhoaXRAaHVhd2VpLmNvbSZndDs8L2ZvbnQ+ DQo8YnI+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0xIGZhY2U9InNhbnMtc2VyaWYiPiZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7 ICZuYnNwOyCzrcvNo7oNCiZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyZxdW90O2NjYW1wJnF1 b3Q7ICZsdDtjY2FtcEBvcHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcmZ3Q7PC9mb250Pg0KPGJyPjxmb250IHNpemU9MSBm YWNlPSJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIj4mbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsg1vfM4qO6DQombmJz cDsgJm5ic3A7ICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDtSRTogQ29tbWVudHMgb24gZHJhZnQtbGktY2NhbXAtbXVs dGlub2Rlcy1nci1wcm9jLTAwLnR4dCw8L2ZvbnQ+PC90YWJsZT4NCjxicj4NCjxicj4NCjxicj48 Zm9udCBzaXplPTMgZmFjZT0iVGltZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuIj5IaSw8L2ZvbnQ+DQo8YnI+PGZvbnQg c2l6ZT0zIGZhY2U9IlRpbWVzIE5ldyBSb21hbiI+Jm5ic3A7PC9mb250Pg0KPGJyPjxmb250IHNp emU9MyBmYWNlPSJUaW1lcyBOZXcgUm9tYW4iPldoaWxlIHJlYWRpbmcgdGhpcyBkcmFmdCBpdCBv Y2N1cnJlZA0KdG8gbWUgdGhhdCBwZXJoYXBzIGl0IG1pZ2h0IGJlIG1vcmUgdXNlZnVsIHRvIGFw cHJvYWNoIHRoaXMgdG9waWMgZnJvbQ0KdGhlIHBlcnNwZWN0aXZlIG9mIKGwV2hhdCBjYW4gZ28g d3JvbmcgZHVyaW5nIGdyYWNlZnVsIHJlc3RhcnQsIHdoYXQgYXJlDQp0aGUgY29uc2VxdWVuY2Vz IGFuZCBob3cgY2FuIGl0IGJlIGZpeGVkP6GxIHJhdGhlciB0aGFuIGZvY3VzaW5nIG9uIHRoZQ0K bmFycm93ZXIgdG9waWMgb2YgbXVsdGlwbGUgc2ltdWx0YW5lb3VzIG5vZGFsIGZhdWx0cy48L2Zv bnQ+DQo8YnI+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0zIGZhY2U9IlRpbWVzIE5ldyBSb21hbiI+Jm5ic3A7PC9mb250 Pg0KPGJyPjxmb250IHNpemU9MyBmYWNlPSJUaW1lcyBOZXcgUm9tYW4iPkZvciBleGFtcGxlLCBT Y2VuYXJpbyAxIGluIHRoZQ0KZHJhZnQgbWF5IGJlIGludGVycHJldGVkIGFzIKGwV2hhdCBzaG91 bGQgaGFwcGVuIGlmIGEgKG5vbi1pbmdyZXNzKSByZXN0YXJ0aW5nDQpub2RlIGZhaWxzIHRvIGdl dCBhIFJlY292ZXJ5UGF0aCBtZXNzYWdlIGZyb20gaXRzIGRvd25zdHJlYW0gbmVpZ2hib3VyP6Gx LA0KU2NlbmFyaW8gMiBpcyChsFdoYXQgc2hvdWxkIGhhcHBlbiBpZiBhIChub24taW5ncmVzcykg cmVzdGFydGluZyBub2RlDQpmYWlscyB0byBnZXQgYSBQYXRoIG1lc3NhZ2UgZnJvbSBpdHMgdXBz dHJlYW0gbmVpZ2hib3VyP6GxIGFuZCBzbyBvbi4NCiZuYnNwO1doZXRoZXIgZWFjaCBvZiB0aGVz ZSBzY2VuYXJpb3MgYXJpc2VzIGR1ZSB0byBtdWx0aXBsZSBzaW11bHRhbmVvdXMNCm5vZGFsIGZh dWx0cyAoYXMgaW4gdGhlIGRyYWZ0KSBvciBhbnkgb3RoZXIgcmVhc29uIChlLmcuIGEgc3Vic2Vx dWVudCBjb250cm9sDQpjaGFubmVsIGZhaWx1cmUsIHJlc3RhcnRpbmcgbm9kZSBiZWluZyBpbnVu ZGF0ZWQgd2l0aCBtZXNzYWdlcyBldGMuKSBpcywNCmluIG15IG9waW5pb24sIHNlY29uZGFyeS4g Jm5ic3A7SSB0aGluayB0aGUga2V5IHRoaW5nIGlzIHRvIGlkZW50aWZ5IHRoZQ0KcG90ZW50aWFs IHByb2JsZW1zIGFuZCBzdWdnZXN0IGFwcHJvcHJpYXRlIHJlbWVkaWFsIGFjdGlvbnMsIHdoZXJl IHRoZQ0KYXV0aG9ycyB0aGluayBleGlzdGluZyBkb2N1bWVudGF0aW9uIGlzIGluc3VmZmljaWVu dCwgcmF0aGVyIHRoYW4gZm9jdXNpbmcNCm9uIDUgZGlmZmVyZW50IHBlcm11dGF0aW9ucyBvZiBt dWx0aXBsZSBub2RlIGdyYWNlZnVsIHJlc3RhcnQuICZuYnNwOyA8L2ZvbnQ+DQo8YnI+PGZvbnQg c2l6ZT0zIGZhY2U9IlRpbWVzIE5ldyBSb21hbiI+Jm5ic3A7PC9mb250Pg0KPGJyPjxmb250IHNp emU9MyBmYWNlPSJUaW1lcyBOZXcgUm9tYW4iPlJlZ2FyZHMsPC9mb250Pg0KPGJyPjxmb250IHNp emU9MyBmYWNlPSJUaW1lcyBOZXcgUm9tYW4iPkZlbWk8L2ZvbnQ+DQo8YnI+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0z IGNvbG9yPSMwMDAwODAgZmFjZT0iQXJpYWwiPiZuYnNwOzwvZm9udD4NCjxicj48Zm9udCBzaXpl PTIgY29sb3I9IzAwMDA4MCBmYWNlPSJBcmlhbCI+Jm5ic3A7PC9mb250Pg0KPGRpdiBhbGlnbj1j ZW50ZXI+DQo8YnI+DQo8aHI+PC9kaXY+DQo8YnI+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0yIGZhY2U9IlRhaG9tYSI+ PGI+RnJvbTo8L2I+IG93bmVyLWNjYW1wQG9wcy5pZXRmLm9yZyBbbWFpbHRvOm93bmVyLWNjYW1w QG9wcy5pZXRmLm9yZ10NCjxiPk9uIEJlaGFsZiBPZiA8L2I+WmFmYXIgQWxpICh6YWxpKTxiPjxi cj4NClNlbnQ6PC9iPiAxMCBKdWx5IDIwMDYgMDQ6MDQ8Yj48YnI+DQpUbzo8L2I+IGRhbmxpQGh1 YXdlaS5jb207IGdqaGhpdEBodWF3ZWkuY29tPGI+PGJyPg0KQ2M6PC9iPiBjY2FtcDxiPjxicj4N ClN1YmplY3Q6PC9iPiBDb21tZW50cyBvbiBkcmFmdC1saS1jY2FtcC1tdWx0aW5vZGVzLWdyLXBy b2MtMDAudHh0LCA8L2ZvbnQ+DQo8YnI+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0zIGZhY2U9IlRpbWVzIE5ldyBSb21h biI+Jm5ic3A7PC9mb250Pg0KPGJyPjxmb250IHNpemU9MiBmYWNlPSJBcmlhbCI+RGVhciBBdXRo b3JzLCA8L2ZvbnQ+DQo8YnI+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0zIGZhY2U9IlRpbWVzIE5ldyBSb21hbiI+Jm5i c3A7PC9mb250Pg0KPGJyPjxmb250IHNpemU9MiBmYWNlPSJBcmlhbCI+VGhpcyBpcyBEZWphLXZ1 IHRvIG1lLi4uLiA8L2ZvbnQ+DQo8YnI+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0zIGZhY2U9IlRpbWVzIE5ldyBSb21h biI+Jm5ic3A7PC9mb250Pg0KPGJyPjxmb250IHNpemU9MiBmYWNlPSJBcmlhbCI+RHJhZnQgPC9m b250Pjxmb250IHNpemU9MyBmYWNlPSJUaW1lcyBOZXcgUm9tYW4iPmRyYWZ0LWlldGYtY2NhbXAt cnN2cC1yZXN0YXJ0LWV4dC0wNS50eHQNCmFjdHVhbGx5IGhhZCBhIHNlY3Rpb24gb24gbXVsdGlw bGUgbm9kZSByZXN0YXJ0IGNhc2UgYW5kIHdhcyByZWplY3RlZCBieQ0KdGhlIFdHIGFzIGFkZHJl c3NpbmcgbXVsdGlwbGUgbm9kZSByZXN0YXJ0IGNhc2UgaXMgTk9UIGEgZ29hbCAoc3VmZmVycw0K ZnJvbSB0aGUgbGF3IG9mIGRpbWluaXNoaW5nIHJldHVybikuIEluIG90aGVyIHdvcmRzIHRoZSBm b2xsb3dpbmcgc3RhdGVtZW50DQppbiB0aGUgSUQtIDwvZm9udD4NCjxicj48Zm9udCBzaXplPTMg ZmFjZT0iVGltZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuIj4mbmJzcDs8L2ZvbnQ+DQo8YnI+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0yIGZh Y2U9IkFyaWFsIj4mbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7JnF1b3Q7W0dSLUVYVF0gYWxzbyBleHRlbmRzDQp0aGUg SGVsbG8gbWVzc2FnZSB0byBleGNoYW5nZSBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiBhYm91dCA8L2ZvbnQ+DQo8YnI+ PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0yIGZhY2U9IkFyaWFsIj4mbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7dGhlIGFiaWxpdHkgdG8gc3Vw cG9ydCB0aGUgUmVjb3ZlcnlQYXRoDQptZXNzYWdlLiA8L2ZvbnQ+DQo8YnI+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0y IGZhY2U9IkFyaWFsIj4mbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7VGhlIGV4YW1wbGVzIGFuZCBwcm9jZWR1cmVzDQpp biBbR1ItRVhUXSBmb2N1cyBvbiB0aGUgZGVzY3JpcHRpb24gb2YgYSA8L2ZvbnQ+DQo8YnI+PGZv bnQgc2l6ZT0yIGZhY2U9IkFyaWFsIj4mbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7c2luZ2xlIG5vZGUgcmVzdGFydCB3 aGVuIGFkamFjZW50DQpuZXR3b3JrIG5vZGVzIGFyZSBvcGVyYXRpdmUuIDwvZm9udD4NCjxicj48 Zm9udCBzaXplPTIgZmFjZT0iQXJpYWwiPiZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDtBbHRob3VnaCB0aGUgcHJvY2Vk dXJlcyBhcmUNCmVxdWFsbHkgYXBwbGljYWJsZSB0byBtdWx0aS1ub2RlIHJlc3RhcnRzLCA8L2Zv bnQ+DQo8YnI+PGZvbnQgc2l6ZT0yIGZhY2U9IkFyaWFsIj4mbmJzcDsgJm5ic3A7bm8gZGV0YWls ZWQgZXhwbGFuYXRpb24gaXMgcHJvdmlkZWQuJnF1b3Q7DQo8L2ZvbnQ+DQo8YnI+PGZvbnQgc2l6 ZT0zIGZhY2U9IlRpbWVzIE5ldyBSb21hbiI+Jm5ic3A7PC9mb250Pg0KPGJyPjxmb250IHNpemU9 MiBmYWNlPSJBcmlhbCI+aXMgbm90IGFjY3VyYXRlLiBQbGVhc2Ugc2VlIHNlY3Rpb24gNCBvbg0K dGhlIGVhcmxpZXIgdmVyc2lvbiBvZiB0aGUgW0dSLUVYVF0sIDwvZm9udD48YSBocmVmPSJodHRw Oi8vd3d3LmZhcXMub3JnL2Z0cC9wdWIvaW50ZXJuZXQtZHJhZnRzL2RyYWZ0LXJhaG1hbi1jY2Ft cC1yc3ZwLXJlc3RhcnQtZXh0ZW5zaW9ucy0wMC50eHQiPjxmb250IHNpemU9MiBjb2xvcj1ibHVl IGZhY2U9IkFyaWFsIj48dT5odHRwOi8vd3d3LmZhcXMub3JnL2Z0cC9wdWIvaW50ZXJuZXQtZHJh ZnRzL2RyYWZ0LXJhaG1hbi1jY2FtcC1yc3ZwLXJlc3RhcnQtZXh0ZW5zaW9ucy0wMC50eHQ8L3U+ PC9mb250PjwvYT48Zm9udCBzaXplPTIgZmFjZT0iQXJpYWwiPi4NCjwvZm9udD4NCjxicj48Zm9u dCBzaXplPTMgZmFjZT0iVGltZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuIj4mbmJzcDs8L2ZvbnQ+DQo8YnI+PGZvbnQg c2l6ZT0yIGZhY2U9IlRpbWVzIE5ldyBSb21hbiI+VGhhbmtzPC9mb250Pg0KPGJyPjxmb250IHNp emU9MyBmYWNlPSJUaW1lcyBOZXcgUm9tYW4iPiZuYnNwOzwvZm9udD4NCjxicj48Zm9udCBzaXpl PTIgZmFjZT0iVGltZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuIj5SZWdhcmRzLi4uIFphZmFyIDwvZm9udD4NCjxicj48 Zm9udCBzaXplPTMgZmFjZT0iVGltZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuIj4mbmJzcDs8L2ZvbnQ+DQo8cD4NCjxi cj48Zm9udCBzaXplPTM+PHR0Pjxicj4NCi0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tPGJyPg0KWlRFIEluZm9ybWF0aW9uIFNlY3VyaXR5IE5v dGljZTogVGhlIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uIGNvbnRhaW5lZCBpbiB0aGlzIG1haWwNCmlzIHNvbGVseSBw cm9wZXJ0eSBvZiB0aGUgc2VuZGVyJ3Mgb3JnYW5pemF0aW9uLiBUaGlzIG1haWwgY29tbXVuaWNh dGlvbg0KaXMgY29uZmlkZW50aWFsLiBSZWNpcGllbnRzIG5hbWVkIGFib3ZlIGFyZSBvYmxpZ2F0 ZWQgdG8gbWFpbnRhaW4gc2VjcmVjeQ0KYW5kIGFyZSBub3QgcGVybWl0dGVkIHRvIGRpc2Nsb3Nl IHRoZSBjb250ZW50cyBvZiB0aGlzIGNvbW11bmljYXRpb24gdG8NCm90aGVycy48YnI+DQpUaGlz IGVtYWlsIGFuZCBhbnkgZmlsZXMgdHJhbnNtaXR0ZWQgd2l0aCBpdCBhcmUgY29uZmlkZW50aWFs IGFuZCBpbnRlbmRlZA0Kc29sZWx5IGZvciB0aGUgdXNlIG9mIHRoZSBpbmRpdmlkdWFsIG9yIGVu dGl0eSB0byB3aG9tIHRoZXkgYXJlIGFkZHJlc3NlZC4NCklmIHlvdSBoYXZlIHJlY2VpdmVkIHRo aXMgZW1haWwgaW4gZXJyb3IgcGxlYXNlIG5vdGlmeSB0aGUgb3JpZ2luYXRvciBvZg0KdGhlIG1l c3NhZ2UuIEFueSB2aWV3cyBleHByZXNzZWQgaW4gdGhpcyBtZXNzYWdlIGFyZSB0aG9zZSBvZiB0 aGUgaW5kaXZpZHVhbA0Kc2VuZGVyLjxicj4NClRoaXMgbWVzc2FnZSBoYXMgYmVlbiBzY2FubmVk IGZvciB2aXJ1c2VzIGFuZCBTcGFtIGJ5IFpURSBBbnRpLVNwYW0gc3lzdGVtLjxicj4NCjwvdHQ+ PC9mb250Pg0KPGJyPg0KPGJyPjxwcmU+DQotLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLQ0KWlRFJm5ic3A7SW5mb3JtYXRpb24mbmJzcDtTZWN1 cml0eSZuYnNwO05vdGljZTombmJzcDtUaGUmbmJzcDtpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiZuYnNwO2NvbnRhaW5l ZCZuYnNwO2luJm5ic3A7dGhpcyZuYnNwO21haWwmbmJzcDtpcyZuYnNwO3NvbGVseSZuYnNwO3By b3BlcnR5Jm5ic3A7b2YmbmJzcDt0aGUmbmJzcDtzZW5kZXIncyZuYnNwO29yZ2FuaXphdGlvbi4m bmJzcDtUaGlzJm5ic3A7bWFpbCZuYnNwO2NvbW11bmljYXRpb24mbmJzcDtpcyZuYnNwO2NvbmZp ZGVudGlhbC4mbmJzcDtSZWNpcGllbnRzJm5ic3A7bmFtZWQmbmJzcDthYm92ZSZuYnNwO2FyZSZu YnNwO29ibGlnYXRlZCZuYnNwO3RvJm5ic3A7bWFpbnRhaW4mbmJzcDtzZWNyZWN5Jm5ic3A7YW5k Jm5ic3A7YXJlJm5ic3A7bm90Jm5ic3A7cGVybWl0dGVkJm5ic3A7dG8mbmJzcDtkaXNjbG9zZSZu YnNwO3RoZSZuYnNwO2NvbnRlbnRzJm5ic3A7b2YmbmJzcDt0aGlzJm5ic3A7Y29tbXVuaWNhdGlv biZuYnNwO3RvJm5ic3A7b3RoZXJzLg0KVGhpcyZuYnNwO2VtYWlsJm5ic3A7YW5kJm5ic3A7YW55 Jm5ic3A7ZmlsZXMmbmJzcDt0cmFuc21pdHRlZCZuYnNwO3dpdGgmbmJzcDtpdCZuYnNwO2FyZSZu YnNwO2NvbmZpZGVudGlhbCZuYnNwO2FuZCZuYnNwO2ludGVuZGVkJm5ic3A7c29sZWx5Jm5ic3A7 Zm9yJm5ic3A7dGhlJm5ic3A7dXNlJm5ic3A7b2YmbmJzcDt0aGUmbmJzcDtpbmRpdmlkdWFsJm5i c3A7b3ImbmJzcDtlbnRpdHkmbmJzcDt0byZuYnNwO3dob20mbmJzcDt0aGV5Jm5ic3A7YXJlJm5i c3A7YWRkcmVzc2VkLiZuYnNwO0lmJm5ic3A7eW91Jm5ic3A7aGF2ZSZuYnNwO3JlY2VpdmVkJm5i c3A7dGhpcyZuYnNwO2VtYWlsJm5ic3A7aW4mbmJzcDtlcnJvciZuYnNwO3BsZWFzZSZuYnNwO25v dGlmeSZuYnNwO3RoZSZuYnNwO29yaWdpbmF0b3ImbmJzcDtvZiZuYnNwO3RoZSZuYnNwO21lc3Nh Z2UuJm5ic3A7QW55Jm5ic3A7dmlld3MmbmJzcDtleHByZXNzZWQmbmJzcDtpbiZuYnNwO3RoaXMm bmJzcDttZXNzYWdlJm5ic3A7YXJlJm5ic3A7dGhvc2UmbmJzcDtvZiZuYnNwO3RoZSZuYnNwO2lu ZGl2aWR1YWwmbmJzcDtzZW5kZXIuDQpUaGlzJm5ic3A7bWVzc2FnZSZuYnNwO2hhcyZuYnNwO2Jl ZW4mbmJzcDtzY2FubmVkJm5ic3A7Zm9yJm5ic3A7dmlydXNlcyZuYnNwO2FuZCZuYnNwO1NwYW0m bmJzcDtieSZuYnNwO1pURSZuYnNwO0FudGktU3BhbSZuYnNwO3N5c3RlbS4NCjwvcHJlPg== --=_alternative 00109677482571EF_=-- --=_mixed 00109675482571EF_= Content-Type: text/plain; name="draft-jian-ccamp-multinodes-rsvp-restart-00.txt" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="draft-jian-ccamp-multinodes-rsvp-restart-00.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Network Working Group JiangWeilian(ZTE Corporation) FengJun(ZTE Corporation) Internet-Draft CuiYing(ZTE Corporation) Expires: May 20, 2006 KongYong(ZTE Corporation) LuoJian(ZTE Corporation) =20 November 20, 2005 =20 =20 Mechanism of multiple adjacent nodes RSVP=20 graceful restart Simultaneously draft-jian-ccamp-multinodes-rsvp-restart-00 Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions of Section 5 of RFC3209, Section 9 of RFC3473. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html This Internet-Draft will expire on May 20, 2006. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). All Rights Reserved. Luojian Expires: May 2006 [Page 1] Internet-Draft draft-jian-ccamp-multinodes-rsvp-restart-00 Oct. 2005 Abstract Based on the RSVP graceful restart defined in the RFC3473, RFC3209,=20 Node ID RSVP Hello:A Clarification Statement (draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp -node-id-based-hello-02) and the Extensions to GMPLS RSVP Graceful Restart (draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-restart-ext-05), this document puts=20 forward extension to solve the problem for the restart node to actively inform RSVP graceful restart to the neighbor, and further provides the relevant mechanism to support recovery processing of RSVP graceful restart at simultaneous restart of multiple adjacent=20 nodes. Table of Contents 1. Conventions used in this document. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terms and abbreviation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Actively Informing Neighbor=20 of RSVP GR Capability by Restarted Node . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.1 Adopting Multicast Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.2 Adopting Hot Backup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. RSVP GR Processing at Simultaneous Restart of Multiple Adjacent Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5.1 Multiple Adjacent Restart Nodes are Intermediate Nodes of the Tunnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5.2 Multiple Adjacent Restart Nodes Contain Tunnel Tail Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.3 Multiple Adjacent Restart Nodes Contain Tunnel Head Node. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 7 5.4 Multiple Adjacent Restart Nodes Contain=20 All the Tunnel Nodes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 =20 Luojian Expires: May 2006 [Page 2] Internet-Draft draft-jian-ccamp-multinodes-rsvp-restart-00 Oct. 2005 1 Conventions used in this document The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",=20 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in=20 this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC-2119]. 2 Terms and abbreviation Suppose the reader is familiar with terms defined in [RFC3209],=20 [RFC3473]. 3 Overview In the RSVP Graceful Restart defined in Section 9 of RFC3473, the=20 Hello mechanism defined by RFC3209 is extended to support GR (Graceful Restart) capability informing and fault detection between RSVP neighbors. It aims to define Resatrt=5FCap object for Hello=20 extension to carry GR capability parameter and inform it to the=20 neighbor through Hello message interaction. The Hello mechanism defined by RFC3209 defines the message=20 destination address and source address as the inter-neighbor=20 interface IP address in turn. In draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-node-id-based -hello-02, the extension defines that the destination address and=20 source address of Hello message supporting GR are TE RouterID of=20 respective nodes. Then, the restart node is usually at a passive position. Only after=20 it receives the RSVP GR Hello message from the neighbor, will it=20 inform the neighbor of its GR capability b returning the ACK message.=20 For restart of a single node, GR capability informing in the passive=20 mode is also acceptable. If multiple adjacent nodes restart at the same time, however, these=20 nodes cannot learn about the GR capability from each other. This=20 document puts forward the solution of using the multicast address as destination address or adopting the hot backup technology to=20 implement active informing of restarted node RSVP GR capability, and further provides the relevant mechanism to support recovery=20 processing of RSVP GR at simultaneous restart of multiple adjacent=20 nodes. Luojian Expires: May 2006 [Page 3] Internet-Draft draft-jian-ccamp-multinodes-rsvp-restart-00 Oct. 2005 4 Actively Informing Neighbor of RSVP GR Capability by Restarted Node 4.1 Adopting Multicast Address After the node restarts and makes sure it supports RSVP GR Recovery, it can periodically send the GR HELLO message outward in the 1/2=20 RecoveryTime through all the RSVP interfaces to inform its GR=20 capability. Main field data composing the GR HELLO request message: The destination IP address is multicast address (IPv4: 224.0.0.2; IPv6: FF02:0:0:0:0:0:0:2). The source IP address is the local TE RouterID. The source instance value is the created value (the neighbors=20 under different interfaces can be the same). The destination instance value is 0. The Restart time value of Restart=5FCap object is the local=20 configuration value. The Recovery time of Restart=5FCap object is the local configuration value. The R digit value of Capability object is 1 (it indicates the node supports receiving of the RecoveryPath message). The T digit value of Capability object is 1 (it indicates the node supports sending of the RecoveryPath message). The S digit value of Capability object is 0 (it indicates the node does not support abstract refreshing message; for support, it can=20 be set as 1). The Reserved digit value of Capability object is 0. =20 When the neighbor receives the GR HELLO request message with this=20 destination address as multicast address, it can first use the=20 informed source RouterID as the neighbor RouterID and local RouterID to query if the corresponding HELLO instance exists: If the instance does not exist, it will create a corresponding=20 instance, save the GR capability parameter informed by the peer,=20 and confirms restart of the peer node based on the fact that the=20 destination IP address is the multicast address. According to the=20 informed GR capability parameter, it confirms that the peer is in the Recovery stage, replies the ACK message to the restart=20 neighbor based on its GR capability, and then creates the=20 corresponding Recovery Timer. Luojian Expires: May 2006 [Page 4] Internet-Draft draft-jian-ccamp-multinodes-rsvp-restart-00 Oct. 2005 If the instance exists, it will save the GR capability parameter informed by the peer, and reply the ACK message to the restart=20 neighbor based on its GR capability. =20 After receiving the ACK reply message from the neighbor, the restart node can create the corresponding GR Hello instance in accordance=20 with the information in the message. By now, the GR Hello relation=20 between the restart node and neighbor node is reestablished. If the destination IP address of the GR HELLO request message=20 received by the restart node from its neighbor is also the multicast address, it means that the neighbor node is also a restart node. In this case, it similarly creates a corresponding instance, saves the GR capability parameter informed by the peer, confirms that the peer node is restarted and in the Recovery stage, and creates the=20 corresponding Recovery Timer. After 1/2RecoveryTime, the restart node must stop sending of the GR Hello message with the destination IP address as multicast address.=20 In stead, it just implements GR Hello communication according to the created GR Hello instance. 4.2 Adopting Hot Backup If the node conducts hot backup of key data for the established GR HELLO instance, such as the neighbor RouterID, local RouterID, source instance value, destination instance value, outgoing interface and=20 the next-hop address. Then, the restart node, after hot backup switching and restart, can get the hot backup GR HELLO instance data before restart, and=20 actively constitute a GR Hello instance based on these data to send a new GR Hello message to inform the neighbor. Then, it=20 reestablishes the GR HELLO relation with the neighbor node. 5 RSVP GR Processing at Simultaneous Restart of Multiple Adjacent Nodes Suppose Tunnel1 is established along with the LSR1-LSR2-LSR3-LSR4=20 path. LSR1, LSR2, LSR3 and LSR4 all support RSVP GR, and all the=20 nodes support sending and receiving of the Recovery Path message. 5.1 Multiple Adjacent Restart Nodes are Intermediate Nodes of the Tunnel Suppose LSR2 and LSR3 start at the same time. LSR1 and LSR4 enter the Restart stage, and they send the GR Hello=20 message to LSR2 and LSR3 in turn. Luojian Expires: May 2006 [Page 5] Internet-Draft draft-jian-ccamp-multinodes-rsvp-restart-00 October 2005 After the LSR2 and LSR3 restart, they will enter the GR Recovery stage according to the configuration. With the method described in Section 4, a GR Hello relation can be set up between LSR2 and LSR3, and they can learn that the peer party is in the GR Recovery stage. At the same time, LSR1 and LSR4 will send the GR Hello request message to LSR2 and LSR3 in turn, and LSR2 and LSR3 will create the corresponding GR HELLO instance, respond to the request messages from LSR1 and LSR4, inform the peer party of support to GR, and then enter the Recovery stage together. After that, LSR1 will send the Path message with Recovery Label=20 object to LSR2. (if sending and receiving of RecoveryPath message are supported, LSR4 will also send the RecoveryPath message to LSR3). =20 After receiving the Path message with Recovery Label object, LSR2=20 will check if the corresponding PSB exists. Suppose it cannot be=20 found, but the corresponding entry is found from the MPLS forwarding=20 table, LSR2 will create the corresponding PSB. However, because the GR Hello relation has been established between LSR2 and LSR3, and they learn that the peer part is in the GR=20 Recovery stage, then LSR2 can send the Path message carrying Recovery Label object to LSR3. Here, the outgoing label and outgoing interface are obtained by query of the forwarding table, and the next-hop=20 address can be obtained through the ERO object of Path message sent=20 upstream. After receiving the Path message carrying Recovery Label object from the restart node LSR2, LSR3 will find out if the corresponding PSB exists according to the received Path message. Suppose it is not=20 found, but the corresponding entry is found from the MPLS forwarding table. Then, LSR3 creates the corresponding PSB, constitutes the=20 Path message containing Suggested Label object and sends it to the downstream LSR4. After receiving the Path refreshing message containing Suggested=20 Label object from the restart node LSR3, LSR4 resolves the incoming label of LSP for recovery through the Suggested=5FLabel object in the Path message. Then, it matches the corresponding RSB, refreshes (clears) the stale flag for the corresponding forwarding table=20 entry, and triggers the corresponding Resv message to send it to=20 LSR3. LSR3 receives the Resv message from LSR4, creates RSB and associates the corresponding PSB. Now, both the incoming label and outgoing label are refreshed. LSR3 clears the stale flag for the corresponding forwarding entry and sends the Resv message to LSR2. Luojian Expires: May 2006 [Page 6] Internet-Draft draft-jian-ccamp-multinodes-rsvp-restart-00 October 2005 LSR2 receives the Resv message from LSR3, creates RSB and associates the corresponding PSB. Now, both the incoming label and outgoing=20 label are refreshed. LSR2 clears the stale flag for the corresponding forwarding entry and sends the Resv message to LSR1. LSR1 receives the Resv message, refreshes RSB, and clears the stale=20 flag of relevant protocol state. Now, Tunnel1 is completely=20 recovered. 5.2 Multiple Adjacent Restart Nodes Contain Tunnel Tail Node Suppose LSR2, LSR3 and LSR4 start at the same time. LSR1 enters the Restart stage, and it sends the GR Hello message to LSR2. After LSR2, LSR3 and LSR4 all restart, they will enter the GR=20 Recovery stage according to the configuration. With the method=20 described in Section 4, a GR Hello relation can be set up between=20 LSR2, LSR3 and LSR4, and they can learn that the peer party is in=20 the GR Recovery stage. At the same time, LSR1 will send the GR Hello request message to=20 LSR2, and LSR2 will create the corresponding GR HELLO instance,=20 respond to the request messages from LSR1, inform the peer party of support to GR, and then enter the Recovery stage together. After that, LSR1 will send the Path message with Recovery Label=20 object to LSR2. The following handing is the same as the description in Section 5.1. The Path message is sent to LSR3. After handing by LSR3, the=20 Path carrying Recovery Label object is sent to LSR4, instead of the Path message carrying Suggested Label object. Then, LSR4 sends the Resv message upstream, and each hop is=20 recovered in turn along with the upstream path till LSR1. Finally,=20 Tunnel1 is completely recovered. 5.3 Multiple Adjacent Restart Nodes Contain Tunnel Head Node Suppose LSR1, LSR2 and LSR3 start at the same time. =20 LSR4 enters the Restart stage, and it sends the GR Hello message to LSR3. After LSR1, LSR2 and LSR3 all restart, they will enter the GR=20 Recovery stage according to the configuration. With the method=20 described in Section 4, a GR Hello relation can be set up between LSR1, LSR2 and LSR3, and they can learn that the peer party is in=20 the GR Recovery stage. Luojian Expires: May 2006 [Page 7] Internet-Draft draft-jian-ccamp-multinodes-rsvp-restart-00 October 2005 At the same time, LSR4 will send the GR Hello request message to LSR3, and LSR3 will create the corresponding GR HELLO instance,=20 respond to the request messages from LSR4, inform the peer party of=20 support to GR, and then enter the Recovery stage together. After that, only LSR4 will send the Recovery Path message to LSR3. (therefore, we suppose all the nodes support sending and receiving of the Recovery Path message.) When receiving the RecoveryPath message from the assistant node=20 LSR4, LSR3 will find out if the corresponding PSB exists according to the received PATH message. Suppose it is not found, but the corresponding entry is found from the MPLS forwarding table. Then,=20 LSR3 creates the corresponding PSB (possibly the original Path=20 message should have the RRO object, which can be used to get the=20 previous-hop address and recover the ERO containing the previous-hop address), and constitutes the Path message containing Suggested Label object to send it to the downstream LSR4 and wait for the Resv=20 message from LSR4. After receiving the Path refreshing message containing Suggested Label object from the restart node LSR3, LSR4 resolves the incoming label of LSP for recovery through the Suggested=5FLabel object in the=20 Path message. Then, it matches the corresponding RSB, refreshes=20 (clears) the stale mark for the corresponding forwarding table entry,=20 and triggers the corresponding Resv message to send it to LSR3. After receiving the Resv message from LSR4, LSR3 creates the=20 corresponding RSB, and refreshes (clears) the stale flag for the=20 corresponding forwarding table entry. Then, LSR3 will send the=20 Recovery Path message to LSR2. The same as handling of LSR3, LSR2, after receiving the RecoveryPath message from LSR3, will create the corresponding PSB, constitute the=20 Path message containing Suggested Label object to send it to the=20 downstream LSR3 and wait for the Resv message from LSR3. =20 After receiving the Resv message from LSR3, LSR2 creates the=20 corresponding RSB, and refreshes (clears) the stale flag for the corresponding forwarding table entry. Then, LSR2 will send the=20 Recovery Path message to LSR1. Similarly, LSR1 creates the corresponding PSB and RSB, and refreshes (clears) the stale flag for the corresponding forwarding table entry. Now, Tunnel1 is completely recovered. Luojian Expires: May 2006 [Page 8] Internet-Draft draft-jian-ccamp-multinodes-rsvp-restart-00 October 2005 5.4 Multiple Adjacent Restart Nodes Contain All the Tunnel Nodes Suppose LSR1, LSR2, LSR3 and LSR4 start at the same time. After LSR1, LSR2, LSR3 and LSR4 all restart, they will enter the GR Recovery stage according to the configuration. With the method=20 described in Section 4, a GR Hello relation can be set up between=20 LSR1, LSR2, LSR3 and LSR4, and they can learn that the peer party is in the GR Recovery stage. However, none of the four LSRs has the Tunnel1 protocol state data=20 before restart, so they cannot constitute any recovery Path message=20 to be sent to the neighbor. In this case, Tunnel1 can only wait for reestablishment of LSR1 after the GR Recovery stage ends. 6 References [RFC3209] Awduche, D., et al., "Extensions to RSVP for LSP=20 Tunnels", December 2001.=20 [RFC3473] Berger, L., et al., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation=20 Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions",=20 January 2003. [RFC1112] Deering, S., "Host Extensions for IP Multicasting",=20 Stanford University, August 1989. [RFC2375] Hinden, R., et al., "IPv6 Multicast Address Assignments",=20 July 1998. IANA =A1=B0INTERNET MULTICAST ADDRESSES=A1=B1, September 2005 [draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-node-id-based-hello-02] Zafar Ali, et al.,"Node ID based RSVP Hello: A=20 Clarification Statement", September 2005. [draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-restart-ext-05] =20 Satyanarayana, et al., "Extension to GMPLS RSVP Graceful Restart", September 2005. Luojian Expires: May 2006 [Page 9] Internet-Draft draft-jian-ccamp-multinodes-rsvp-restart-00 October 2005 =20 Authors Addresses=20 JiangWeilian=20 =20 No.68 Zijinghua Road, Yuhuatai District Nanjing, China=20 Phone: +86-025-52871644=20 Email: jiang.weilian@zte.com.cn =20 FengJun No.68 Zijinghua Road, Yuhuatai District Nanjing, China=20 Phone: +86-025-52871631=20 Email: feng.jun99@zte.com.cn CuiYing No.68 Zijinghua Road, Yuhuatai District Nanjing, China=20 Phone: +86-025-52871631=20 Email: cui.ying@zte.com.cn =20 KongYong No.68 Zijinghua Road, Yuhuatai District Nanjing, China=20 Phone: +86-025-52871177=20 Email: kong.yong@zte.com.cn =20 LuoJian =20 No.68 Zijinghua Road, Yuhuatai District Nanjing, China=20 Phone: +86-025-51803814=20 Email: luo.jian@zte.com.cn =20 Comments are solicited and should be addressed to the working=20 group's mailing list at ccamp@ops.ietf.org and/or the author(s). Luojian Expires: May 2006 [Page 10] Internet-Draft draft-jian-ccamp-multinodes-rsvp-restart-00 October 2005 Intellectual Property Statement=20 =20 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any=20 intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to=20 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in=20 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights=20 might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it=20 has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the=20 IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and=20 standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of=20 claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of=20 licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to=20 obtain a general license or permission for the use of such=20 proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can=20 be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.=20 =20 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any=20 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary=20 rights, which may cover technology that may be required to practice=20 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive=20 Director.=20 Disclaimer of Validity =20 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an=20 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS=20 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET=20 ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE=20 INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED=20 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. =20 Full Copyright Statement=20 =20 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).=20 This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions=20 contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors=20 retain all their rights.=20 Acknowledgments=20 =20 The authors would like to thank XuZhijun, DuKe, ZhuXinhua,=20 ChenJianye and all the other people who have contributed to this=20 draft, and also would like to thank all the future participants for their comments and suggestions.=20 Luojian Expires: May 2006 [Page 11] Internet-Draft draft-jian-ccamp-multinodes-rsvp-restart-00 October 2005 --=_mixed 00109675482571EF_=-- Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 12:43:35 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C6DBE8.F1529B3A" Subject: RE: Comments on draft-li-ccamp-multinodes-gr-proc-00.txt, Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 13:45:47 +0100 Message-ID: <BED9D15F73EDDE48BF480604236A45600302BAA2@ex1.ad.dcs.gla.ac.uk> Thread-Topic: Comments on draft-li-ccamp-multinodes-gr-proc-00.txt, Thread-Index: AcajzYu3Wna7e+MHRe2xxdCgls5b7A4GVrqQ From: "Olufemi Komolafe" <femi@dcs.gla.ac.uk> To: <danli@huawei.com>, <gjhhit@huawei.com> Cc: "ccamp" <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C6DBE8.F1529B3A Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, =20 While reading this draft it occurred to me that perhaps it might be more useful to approach this topic from the perspective of "What can go wrong during graceful restart, what are the consequences and how can it be fixed?" rather than focusing on the narrower topic of multiple simultaneous nodal faults. =20 For example, Scenario 1 in the draft may be interpreted as "What should happen if a (non-ingress) restarting node fails to get a RecoveryPath message from its downstream neighbour?", Scenario 2 is "What should happen if a (non-ingress) restarting node fails to get a Path message from its upstream neighbour?" and so on. Whether each of these scenarios arises due to multiple simultaneous nodal faults (as in the draft) or any other reason (e.g. a subsequent control channel failure, restarting node being inundated with messages etc.) is, in my opinion, secondary. I think the key thing is to identify the potential problems and suggest appropriate remedial actions, where the authors think existing documentation is insufficient, rather than focusing on 5 different permutations of multiple node graceful restart. =20 =20 Regards, Femi =20 =20 ________________________________ From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Zafar Ali (zali) Sent: 10 July 2006 04:04 To: danli@huawei.com; gjhhit@huawei.com Cc: ccamp Subject: Comments on draft-li-ccamp-multinodes-gr-proc-00.txt,=20 =20 Dear Authors,=20 =20 This is Deja-vu to me....=20 =20 Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-restart-ext-05.txt actually had a section on multiple node restart case and was rejected by the WG as addressing multiple node restart case is NOT a goal (suffers from the law of diminishing return). In other words the following statement in the ID-=20 =20 "[GR-EXT] also extends the Hello message to exchange information about=20 the ability to support the RecoveryPath message.=20 The examples and procedures in [GR-EXT] focus on the description of a single node restart when adjacent network nodes are operative.=20 Although the procedures are equally applicable to multi-node restarts,=20 no detailed explanation is provided."=20 =20 is not accurate. Please see section 4 on the earlier version of the [GR-EXT], http://www.faqs.org/ftp/pub/internet-drafts/draft-rahman-ccamp-rsvp-rest art-extensions-00.txt <http://www.faqs.org/ftp/pub/internet-drafts/draft-rahman-ccamp-rsvp-res tart-extensions-00.txt> .=20 =20 Thanks =20 Regards... Zafar=20 =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C6DBE8.F1529B3A Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" = xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" = xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" = xmlns:st1=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" = xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <meta http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; = charset=3Dus-ascii"> <meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)"> <!--[if !mso]> <style> v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} </style> <![endif]--><o:SmartTagType namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" = name=3D"State"/> <o:SmartTagType = namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name=3D"place"/> <!--[if !mso]> <style> st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) } </style> <![endif]--> <style> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"MS Mincho"; panose-1:2 2 6 9 4 2 5 8 3 4;} @font-face {font-family:Tahoma; panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} @font-face {font-family:"\@MS Mincho"; panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {color:blue; text-decoration:underline;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:blue; text-decoration:underline;} span.EmailStyle17 {mso-style-type:personal-reply; font-family:Arial; color:navy;} @page Section1 {size:595.3pt 841.9pt; margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style> </head> <body lang=3DEN-GB link=3Dblue vlink=3Dblue> <div class=3DSection1> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size: 12.0pt'>Hi,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size: 12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size: 12.0pt'>While reading this draft it occurred to me that perhaps it might = be more useful to approach this topic from the perspective of “What = can go wrong during graceful restart, what are the consequences and how can it = be fixed?” rather than focusing on the narrower topic of multiple simultaneous nodal faults.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size: 12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size: 12.0pt'>For example, Scenario 1 in the draft may be interpreted as = “What should happen if a (non-ingress) restarting node fails to get a = RecoveryPath message from its downstream neighbour?”, Scenario 2 is “What should = happen if a (non-ingress) restarting node fails to get a Path message from its upstream neighbour?” and so on. Whether each of these = scenarios arises due to multiple simultaneous nodal faults (as in the draft) or any other = reason (e.g. a subsequent control channel failure, restarting node being = inundated with messages etc.) is, in my opinion, secondary. I think the key = thing is to identify the potential problems and suggest appropriate remedial = actions, where the authors think existing documentation is insufficient, rather = than focusing on 5 different permutations of multiple node graceful = restart. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size: 12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size: 12.0pt'>Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size: 12.0pt'>Femi<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p> <div style=3D'border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm = 0cm 4.0pt'> <div> <div class=3DMsoNormal align=3Dcenter style=3D'text-align:center'><font = size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span lang=3DEN-US style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'> <hr size=3D2 width=3D"100%" align=3Dcenter tabindex=3D-1> </span></font></div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><b><font size=3D2 face=3DTahoma><span lang=3DEN-US style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold'>From:</spa= n></font></b><font size=3D2 face=3DTahoma><span lang=3DEN-US = style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'> owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] <b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>On Behalf Of </span></b>Zafar Ali (zali)<br> <b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> 10 July 2006 = 04:04<br> <b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> danli@huawei.com; gjhhit@huawei.com<br> <b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>Cc:</span></b> ccamp<br> <b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> Comments on draft-li-ccamp-multinodes-gr-proc-00.txt, </span></font><span = lang=3DEN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size: 12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p> <div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'>Dear Authors, </span></font><o:p></o:p></p> </div> <div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size: 12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> </div> <div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'>This is Deja-vu to me.... = </span></font><o:p></o:p></p> </div> <div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size: 12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> </div> <div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'>Draft </span></font><span = lang=3DEN-US>draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-restart-ext-05.txt actually had a section on multiple node restart case and was rejected by = the WG as addressing multiple node restart case is NOT a goal (suffers = from the law of diminishing return). In other words the following statement in = the <st1:State w:st=3D"on"><st1:place w:st=3D"on">ID-</st1:place></st1:State> = </span><o:p></o:p></p> </div> <div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size: 12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> </div> <div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'> "[GR-EXT] also extends the Hello = message to exchange information about </span></font><o:p></o:p></p> </div> <div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'> the ability to support the RecoveryPath message. </span></font><o:p></o:p></p> </div> <div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'> The examples and procedures in [GR-EXT] = focus on the description of a </span></font><o:p></o:p></p> </div> <div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'> single node restart when adjacent = network nodes are operative. </span></font><o:p></o:p></p> </div> <div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'> Although the procedures are equally = applicable to multi-node restarts, </span></font><o:p></o:p></p> </div> <div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'> no detailed explanation is = provided." </span></font><o:p></o:p></p> </div> <div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size: 12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> </div> <div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial'>is not accurate. Please see section 4 on the earlier = version of the [GR-EXT], </span></font><a href=3D"http://www.faqs.org/ftp/pub/internet-drafts/draft-rahman-ccamp-rs= vp-restart-extensions-00.txt"><font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>http://www.faqs.org/ftp/pub/= internet-drafts/draft-rahman-ccamp-rsvp-restart-extensions-00.txt</span><= /font></a><font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span = style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>. = </span></font><o:p></o:p></p> </div> <div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size: 12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> </div> <div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size: 10.0pt'>Thanks</span></font><o:p></o:p></p> </div> <div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size: 12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> </div> <div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size: 10.0pt'>Regards... Zafar </span></font><o:p></o:p></p> </div> <div> <p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span = style=3D'font-size: 12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> </div> </div> </div> </body> </html> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C6DBE8.F1529B3A-- Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 09:53:39 +0000 Message-ID: <099001c6da3f$19350de0$0a23fea9@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> To: "Pandian, Vijay" <Vijay.Pandian@sycamorenet.com>, <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Subject: Re: PROTECTION Object in draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-e2e-signaling Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 10:49:33 +0100 Organization: Old Dog Consulting MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Vijay, > What is the rationale behind defining a new C-Type ( C-Type = 2, > suggested value, TBA by IANA) for the PROTECTION Object in > the e2e draft instead of extending C-Type = 1 defined in rfc3473? If you are familiar with the way RSVP has been developed over the years you will notice that this is standard practice. Consider the Session_Attribute object in RFC 3209. You will see two different C-Types here according to the content of the object. Perhaps a better example is the RSVP Hop object. This appears in RFC 2205 with C-Types 1 and 2 (for different uses) and is extended in RFC 3473 with two new C-Types. The C-Type is used to distinguish sub-types of the same object. This is, of course, useful, in normal implementation because it means that we don't have to make assumptions about the object's contents from parsing other fields (like the length). It is particulalry useful when a new variant of an object is introduced because it enables backward compatibility problems to be detected - a legacy implementation that does not support the new C-Type will reject the message (see RFC 2205) and the message sender can then take action to avoid the problem. In the case of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-e2e-signaling, you'll notice that although the format of the first 8 bytes of the C-Type2 Protection object matches the C-Type1 Protection object in RFC 3473 with the adoption of some of the reserved bits, an extra 32 bit reserved field is added to the end of the object. (As indicated in draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-e2e-signaling, these 32 bits are defined in draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-segment-recovery.) So the processing for the two C-Types is different and it is useful to be able to distinction them through a different code point. > Should we consider C-Type = 1 as obsolete? Why? You must interoperate with 3473 implementations (always assuming interop is on your agenda) and any implementation not wanting e2e or segment protection can continue to use C-Type 1. Adrian Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 09:49:31 +0000 To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org, mpls@ietf.org, ospf@ietf.org, "Pandian, Vijay" <Vijay.Pandian@sycamorenet.com> Subject: Re: RFC3630 - Local and Remote Interface IP address MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <OFB9F9FEFE.6E30228F-ONC12571EC.00352ED8-C12571EC.0035ED04@netfr.alcatel.fr> From: Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 11:48:55 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" adrian point is that one can have two different readings of these sentences either one assigns multiple IP addresses and configures a specific map of these addresses to components (e.g. sub-interfaces) or it is meant just to assign multiple IP addresses to an interface independently of this segmentation however, there is no bundling concept in this ref. or equivalently the bundling RFC maps a single (composed) TE link to a TE link (with specific aggregation rules when it comes to TE attributes) that is RFC4201 uses a single value for the link local/remote address/interface associated to the bundle thanks, - d. "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> 17/09/2006 11:31 Please respond to "Adrian Farrel" To: "Pandian, Vijay" <Vijay.Pandian@sycamorenet.com>, Dimitri PAPADIMITRIOU/BE/ALCATEL@ALCATEL cc: <ospf@ietf.org>, <mpls@ietf.org>, <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Subject: Re: RFC3630 - Local and Remote Interface IP address Hi Vijay, OSPF-TE implementers may wish to disagree with me on this, but I think Dimitri's definitive statement does not cover the basic reasoning for this feature. While it is true that one can use multiple link addresses to identify multiple component links, I think that the multiplicity of link addresses is provided in this RFC so that a single TE link may support multiple interfaces. This is an implementation choice, and may be advantageous in some cases. If the multiple link addresses are used to identify multiple component links, then I would expect a 1:1 correspondence between the link ends. If the addresses are used to identify different interfaces to the same link then I would not necessarily expect a 1:1 correspondence. In answer to your most recent questions: > Section 2.4.2 of rfc3630 says: "The Link TLV describes a single link." And so it does. It describes a single TE link. A link bundle is still a single TE link, but it is made up of multiple component links that are not identified as TE links in their own right. > Section 2.5.3 of rfc3630 says: "The Local Interface IP Address sub-TLV > specifies the IP address(es) of the interface corresponding to this link." > > Section 2.5.4 of rfc3630 says: "The Remote Interface IP Address sub-TLV > specifies the IP address(es) of the neighbor's interface corresponding to > this link." As above > Doesn't this mean the Local and Remote Interface IP Address sub-TLV > corresponds to just ONE TE-Link? Yes, it does. > There is no mention of "components" anywhere in this document. Even in > rfc4201, it is not clear that when multiple (component) TE-Links are > aggregated as a single numbered bundled link, there can be more than one > Interface IP address used for Local and Remote Interface IP Address. > > Could you please provide a reference where this is clarified as the mean > for > advertising multiple components at once. I don't think you will find such a reference. What is clear is that an implementation MAY assign multiple interface IP addresses. Therefore, there is nothing to stop an implementation using the component link identifiers as the set of interface IP addresses. Since each component link is in just one bundle, the use of a component link identifier uniquely identifies the bundle. This mechanism of advertising is, therefore, a clever way of advertising bundle membership information to the neighbor. If you want a more definitive statement of how this can work, you should probably develop an Applicability Statement I-D. Regards, Adrian > Thanks and best regards, > > Vijay > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be > [mailto:Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be] > Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 1:57 AM > To: Pandian, Vijay > Subject: Re: RFC3630 - Local and Remote Interface IP address > > > hi vijay - this was meant for advertizing multiple components at once > > > > > "Pandian, Vijay" <Vijay.Pandian@sycamorenet.com> > Sent by: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org > 06/07/2006 02:56 > > To: ospf@ietf.org > cc: mpls@ietf.org, ccamp@ops.ietf.org > Subject: RFC3630 - Local and Remote Interface IP address > > > Section 2.5.3 indicates that there can be more than one Local Interface IP > address assigned to a (numbered) TE-Link. Similarly, section 2.5.4 > indicates that there can be more than one Remote Interface IP Address > assigned to a (numbered) TE-Link. > > Is there any requirement that the number of Local Interface IP address > assigned to a given TE-link match the number of Remote Interface IP > address. > > Specifically, can a TE-Link have just one Local Interface IP address but > multiple Remote Interface IP Address or vice-versa? > > Best regards, > > Vijay > > > > Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 09:34:20 +0000 Message-ID: <097c01c6da3c$1ab832d0$0a23fea9@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> To: "Pandian, Vijay" <Vijay.Pandian@sycamorenet.com>, <Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be> Cc: <ospf@ietf.org>, <mpls@ietf.org>, <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Subject: Re: RFC3630 - Local and Remote Interface IP address Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 10:31:31 +0100 Organization: Old Dog Consulting MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Vijay, OSPF-TE implementers may wish to disagree with me on this, but I think Dimitri's definitive statement does not cover the basic reasoning for this feature. While it is true that one can use multiple link addresses to identify multiple component links, I think that the multiplicity of link addresses is provided in this RFC so that a single TE link may support multiple interfaces. This is an implementation choice, and may be advantageous in some cases. If the multiple link addresses are used to identify multiple component links, then I would expect a 1:1 correspondence between the link ends. If the addresses are used to identify different interfaces to the same link then I would not necessarily expect a 1:1 correspondence. In answer to your most recent questions: > Section 2.4.2 of rfc3630 says: "The Link TLV describes a single link." And so it does. It describes a single TE link. A link bundle is still a single TE link, but it is made up of multiple component links that are not identified as TE links in their own right. > Section 2.5.3 of rfc3630 says: "The Local Interface IP Address sub-TLV > specifies the IP address(es) of the interface corresponding to this link." > > Section 2.5.4 of rfc3630 says: "The Remote Interface IP Address sub-TLV > specifies the IP address(es) of the neighbor's interface corresponding to > this link." As above > Doesn't this mean the Local and Remote Interface IP Address sub-TLV > corresponds to just ONE TE-Link? Yes, it does. > There is no mention of "components" anywhere in this document. Even in > rfc4201, it is not clear that when multiple (component) TE-Links are > aggregated as a single numbered bundled link, there can be more than one > Interface IP address used for Local and Remote Interface IP Address. > > Could you please provide a reference where this is clarified as the mean > for > advertising multiple components at once. I don't think you will find such a reference. What is clear is that an implementation MAY assign multiple interface IP addresses. Therefore, there is nothing to stop an implementation using the component link identifiers as the set of interface IP addresses. Since each component link is in just one bundle, the use of a component link identifier uniquely identifies the bundle. This mechanism of advertising is, therefore, a clever way of advertising bundle membership information to the neighbor. If you want a more definitive statement of how this can work, you should probably develop an Applicability Statement I-D. Regards, Adrian > Thanks and best regards, > > Vijay > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be > [mailto:Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be] > Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 1:57 AM > To: Pandian, Vijay > Subject: Re: RFC3630 - Local and Remote Interface IP address > > > hi vijay - this was meant for advertizing multiple components at once > > > > > "Pandian, Vijay" <Vijay.Pandian@sycamorenet.com> > Sent by: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org > 06/07/2006 02:56 > > To: ospf@ietf.org > cc: mpls@ietf.org, ccamp@ops.ietf.org > Subject: RFC3630 - Local and Remote Interface IP address > > > Section 2.5.3 indicates that there can be more than one Local Interface IP > address assigned to a (numbered) TE-Link. Similarly, section 2.5.4 > indicates that there can be more than one Remote Interface IP Address > assigned to a (numbered) TE-Link. > > Is there any requirement that the number of Local Interface IP address > assigned to a given TE-link match the number of Remote Interface IP > address. > > Specifically, can a TE-Link have just one Local Interface IP address but > multiple Remote Interface IP Address or vice-versa? > > Best regards, > > Vijay > > > > Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 19:50:31 +0000 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec-06.txt Message-Id: <E1GOJhK-0007PU-IX@stiedprstage1.ietf.org> Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 15:50:02 -0400 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Common Control and Measurement Plane Working Group of the IETF. Title : GMPLS - Communication of Alarm Information Author(s) : L. Berger Filename : draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec-06.txt Pages : 20 Date : 2006-9-15 This document describes an extension to Generalized MPLS (Multi- Protocol Label Switching) signaling to support communication of alarm information. GMPLS signaling already supports the control of alarm reporting, but not the communication of alarm information. This document presents both a functional description and GMPLS-RSVP specifics of such an extension. This document also proposes modification of the RSVP ERROR_SPEC object. This document updates RFC 3473 "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions" through the addition of new, optional protocol elements. It does not change, and is fully backward compatible with the procedures specified in RFC 3473. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec-06.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec-06.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec-06.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2006-9-15134032.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec-06.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec-06.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2006-9-15134032.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 18:57:04 +0000 From: "Jim Jones" <jim.d.jones@alcatel.com> To: "'Adrian Farrel'" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Cc: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>, "'Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS'" <dbrungard@att.com>, "'Ross Callon'" <rcallon@juniper.net>, "'Bill Fenner'" <fenner@research.att.com> Subject: RE: New CCAMP RFC of Interest to OIF Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 13:55:54 -0500 Message-ID: <003901c6d8f8$94dabcd0$9c51d18f@ad3.ad.alcatel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit thread-index: AcbY7YEDw64Nfe3gSs2k719pH0g66gACt7wQ Dear Adrian and Deborah, Thank you for the update. I will make the membership aware of this new RFC. Best Regards, Jim Jones OIF Technical Committee Chair -----Original Message----- From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk] Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 12:33 PM To: Jim Jones Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS; Ross Callon; Bill Fenner Subject: New CCAMP RFC of Interest to OIF Dear Jim, The CCAMP working group of the IETF is pleased to inform you of the publication of RFC 4606: Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control. The Abstract to this RFC reads as follows: This document is a companion to the Generalized Multi-protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) signaling. It defines the Synchronous Optical Network (SONET)/Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) technology- specific information needed when GMPLS signaling is used. The RFC can be downloaded free of charge from http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4606.txt RFC 4606 obsoletes RFC 3946 and addresses a minor clarification arising from a question raised by the OIF as a result of interworking tests. Further information about the work of the CCAMP working group can be found at our charter page: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/ccamp-charter.html Best regards, Adrian Farrel and Deborah Brungard CCAMP Working Group Co-Chairs Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 17:42:29 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 To: Greg Jones <greg.jones@itu.int> Cc: Stephen Trowbridge <sjtrowbridge@lucent.com>, Kam Lam <hklam@lucent.com>, CCAMP Mailing List <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>, Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net>, Bill Fenner <fenner@research.att.com>, Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>, Deborah Brungard <dbrungard@att.com>, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> From: Adrian Farrel (IETF CCAMP WG) <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Subject: New Liaison Statement, "New RFC on GMPLS Extensions for SONET/SDH" Reply-To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Message-Id: <E1GOHhh-0002Tm-B9@ietf.org> Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 13:42:17 -0400 Title: New RFC on GMPLS Extensions for SONET/SDH Submission Date: 2006-09-15 URL of the IETF Web page: https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/liaison_detail.cgi?detail_id=264 From: Adrian Farrel(IETF CCAMP WG) <adrian@olddog.co.uk> To: ITU-T SG15(Greg Jones <greg.jones@itu.int>) Cc: Stephen Trowbridge <sjtrowbridge@lucent.com> Kam Lam <hklam@lucent.com> CCAMP Mailing List <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net> Bill Fenner <fenner@research.att.com> Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu> Deborah Brungard <dbrungard@att.com> Reponse Contact: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Technical Contact: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Purpose: For information Body: The CCAMP working group of the IETF is pleased to inform you of the publication of RFC 4606: Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control. The Abstract to this RFC reads as follows: This document is a companion to the Generalized Multi-protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) signaling. It defines the Synchronous Optical Network (SONET)/Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) technology- specific information needed when GMPLS signaling is used. The RFC can be downloaded free of charge from http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4606.txt RFC 4606 obsoletes RFC 3946 and addresses a minor clarification. Further information about the work of the CCAMP working group can be found at our charter page http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/ccamp-charter.html Best regards, Adrian Farrel and Deborah Brungard CCAMP Working Group Co-Chairs Attachment(s): No document has been attached Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 17:36:49 +0000 Message-ID: <081c01c6d8ed$5c273540$0a23fea9@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> To: "Jim Jones" <Jim.D.Jones@alcatel.com> Cc: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>, "Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS" <dbrungard@att.com>, "Ross Callon" <rcallon@juniper.net>, "Bill Fenner" <fenner@research.att.com> Subject: New CCAMP RFC of Interest to OIF Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 18:33:15 +0100 Organization: Old Dog Consulting MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear Jim, The CCAMP working group of the IETF is pleased to inform you of the publication of RFC 4606: Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control. The Abstract to this RFC reads as follows: This document is a companion to the Generalized Multi-protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) signaling. It defines the Synchronous Optical Network (SONET)/Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) technology- specific information needed when GMPLS signaling is used. The RFC can be downloaded free of charge from http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4606.txt RFC 4606 obsoletes RFC 3946 and addresses a minor clarification arising from a question raised by the OIF as a result of interworking tests. Further information about the work of the CCAMP working group can be found at our charter page: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/ccamp-charter.html Best regards, Adrian Farrel and Deborah Brungard CCAMP Working Group Co-Chairs Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 15:11:26 +0000 Sensitivity: Subject: Re: Attempting consensus on draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-03.txt To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Cc: "<ccamp" <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Message-ID: <OF47D5A9A1.81547D0A-ONC12571EA.0052D2B6-C12571EA.0053746E@uk.marconicomms.com> From: "Diego Caviglia" <Diego.Caviglia@marconi.com> Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 17:09:14 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Adrian, I'd like to thank you for having done this summary. As an author of the ID I agree with your points. We'll review the ID. Regards Diego "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>@ops.ietf.org on 15/09/2006 13.52.30 Please respond to "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Sent by: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org To: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> cc: Subject: Attempting consensus on draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-03.txt Hi, We had a lively debate, and I promised to try to summarise the points to see if we have some form of consensus. draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-03.txt describes a problem space where the authors say it is desirable to be able to transfer control of an LSP between the management plane and a GMPLS control plane. They support this claim with various scenarios. They then develop a series of requirements on the process. The intention is to specify a process and develop any necessary protocol extensions. Re-reading the thread, I think I see the following points: 1. General agreement that transfer of control from the management plane to the control plane is a realistic scenario as a GMPLS control plane is introduced into an existing network where LSPs have been established using the management plane. 2. Some disagreement about whether point 1 needs to be performed dynamically, but nevertheless agreement that some operators may wish to make the transfer hitlessly (i.e. without a maintenance period) and in a network without sufficient spare capacity to establish a parallel LSP. 3. Considerable disagreement about some of the scenarios (documented and raised on the mailing list) for the transfer of control from the control plane to the management plane. 4. Some understanding that if transfer from the management plane to the control plane is supported, there will be a desire to back-out the process, for example if the operator is not happy with the result. 5. Some debate over whether either of the transfers (but particularly the transfer from control plane to management plane) would result in any extensions to the protocols. 6. Concern that handling failure events, where control of the LSP ends up in some mixed mode, could be very messy. My conclusions, therefore, are: A. There is consensus to work on transfer from the management plane to the control plane. B. There is enough interest to justify work on the transfer from the control plane to the management plane, but this should be scoped as a back-out procedure. C. The requirements should initially state the functional requirements and should not assume that changes to the protocols are necessary. That is, if the requirements draft can be answered with an applicability statement, that would be good all round. Later section of the draft can state current protocol behavior, and point out any gaps that need to be filled. D. The requirements draft must cover the requirements for failure cases in good detail We should encourage the authors to revise their draft along these lines at which time the working group may be more likely to find itself in full consensus. Thanks, Adrian Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 14:53:34 +0000 Message-ID: <07b901c6d8d6$62cb9d30$0a23fea9@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> To: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Subject: Attempting consensus on draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-03.txt Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 12:52:30 +0100 Organization: Old Dog Consulting MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, We had a lively debate, and I promised to try to summarise the points to see if we have some form of consensus. draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-03.txt describes a problem space where the authors say it is desirable to be able to transfer control of an LSP between the management plane and a GMPLS control plane. They support this claim with various scenarios. They then develop a series of requirements on the process. The intention is to specify a process and develop any necessary protocol extensions. Re-reading the thread, I think I see the following points: 1. General agreement that transfer of control from the management plane to the control plane is a realistic scenario as a GMPLS control plane is introduced into an existing network where LSPs have been established using the management plane. 2. Some disagreement about whether point 1 needs to be performed dynamically, but nevertheless agreement that some operators may wish to make the transfer hitlessly (i.e. without a maintenance period) and in a network without sufficient spare capacity to establish a parallel LSP. 3. Considerable disagreement about some of the scenarios (documented and raised on the mailing list) for the transfer of control from the control plane to the management plane. 4. Some understanding that if transfer from the management plane to the control plane is supported, there will be a desire to back-out the process, for example if the operator is not happy with the result. 5. Some debate over whether either of the transfers (but particularly the transfer from control plane to management plane) would result in any extensions to the protocols. 6. Concern that handling failure events, where control of the LSP ends up in some mixed mode, could be very messy. My conclusions, therefore, are: A. There is consensus to work on transfer from the management plane to the control plane. B. There is enough interest to justify work on the transfer from the control plane to the management plane, but this should be scoped as a back-out procedure. C. The requirements should initially state the functional requirements and should not assume that changes to the protocols are necessary. That is, if the requirements draft can be answered with an applicability statement, that would be good all round. Later section of the draft can state current protocol behavior, and point out any gaps that need to be filled. D. The requirements draft must cover the requirements for failure cases in good detail We should encourage the authors to revise their draft along these lines at which time the working group may be more likely to find itself in full consensus. Thanks, Adrian Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 16:24:36 +0000 To: Greg Jones <greg.jones@itu.int> Cc: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, IAB <iab@ietf.org>, Steve Trowbridge <sjtrowbridge@lucent.com>, Malcolm Betts <betts01@nortel.com>, Yoichi Maeda <maeda@ansl.ntt.co.jp>, Ghani Abbas <ghani.abbas@marconi.com>, Houlin Zhao <houlin.zhao@itu.int>, CCAMP mailing list <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>, MPLS mailing list <mpls@lists.ietf.org>, PWE3 mailing list <pwe3@ietf.org>, Loa Andersson <loa@pi.se>, Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>, Deborah Brungard <dbrungard@att.com>, Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com>, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, Danny McPherson <danny@arbor.net>, statements@ietf.org Cc: swallow@cisco.com Subject: Updated Liaison to ITU-T SG15 From: George Swallow <swallow@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 12:23:25 -0400 Message-Id: <20060914162325.8C2AF2F38EB@swallow-mini-mac.cisco.com> DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; l=6389; t=1158250987; x=1159114987; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim1001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=swallow@cisco.com; z=From:George=20Swallow=20<swallow@cisco.com> |Subject:Updated=20Liaison=20to=20ITU-T=20SG15=20 |To:Greg=20Jones=20<greg.jones@itu.int>; X=v=3Dcisco.com=3B=20h=3DucrXgxnUFLBKbA4teKEn31O4ArA=3D; b=AVtUQeQlfzTkT2gno5CFjbk1KeQoncjH7B1B7HiiOKa8R3W2TAPuzFYQEiHUMoXvEny2lXGl 79WhrtW/94LPZZ7JtavtIVosNk2ztuPgQC2ouQPq8GbQQg0b1cPxTxFK; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com; header.From=swallow@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com verified; ); All - There is a type-o in the liaison sent yesterday. The second sentence of the third paragraph should have been deleted. An updated copy is attached. ...George ======================================================================== Liaison Statement Submission Date: 2006-09-13 From: Loa Andersson (IETF Liaison to ITU-T, MPLS; IETF MPLS WG Chair; loa@pi.se) Scott Bradner (IETF Liaison to ITU-T, sob@harvard.edu) Deborah Brungard (IETF CCAMP WG Chair, dbrungard@att.com) Stewart Bryant (IETF PWE3 WG Chair, stbryant@cisco.com) Adrian Farrel (IETF Liaison to SG15, CCAMP WG Chair, adrian@olddog.co.uk) Danny McPherson (IETF PWE3 WG Chair, danny@arbor.net) George Swallow (IETF MPLS WG Chair, swallow@cisco.com) To: ITU-T Study Group 15; Greg Jones (greg.jones@itu.int) CC: IESG (iesg@ietf.org) IAB (iab@ietf.org) Steve Trowbridge (sjtrowbridge@lucent.com) Malcolm Betts (betts01@nortel.com) Yoichi Maeda (maeda@ansl.ntt.co.jp) Ghani Abbas (ghani.abbas@marconi.com) Houlin Zhao (houlin.zhao@itu.int) CCAMP mailing list (ccamp@ops.ietf.org) MPLS mailing list (mpls@lists.ietf.org) PWE3 mailing list (pwe3@ietf.org) Re: T-MPLS use of the MPLS Ethertypes Response Contact: George Swallow Technical Contact: George Swallow Purpose: For action Deadline: 2006-10-13 We would like to thank you for your response to our liaison. We feel that through the liaison activity and the Ottawa meeting we have entered into a productive and useful dialogue. We are particularly pleased by your positive reaction to most of our concerns. We do, however, once again, request documentation of the problem that T-MPLS solves. We feel that this documentation is fundamental to a proper review of the T-MPLS architecture, protocol requirements, and any future solutions, and we advise the ITU-T not to present any T-MPLS Recommendations for consent until work on a T-MPLS problem statement is well advanced. Further, a full reference diagram of the interfaces and services of the T-MPLS network would be most useful. We understand that the direct adaptation of an IP/MPLS client over a T-MPLS server is still at a very preliminary stage. However, some understanding of the client/server relationship is necessary in order to adequately evaluate architectural decisions currently being made in G.8110.1. The most immediate concern is the proposed use of the MPLS Ethertypes. First we would like to call your attention to the fact that we are in the process of modifying the semantics of the two Ethertypes used by MPLS. Currently their designations are "MPLS Unicast" (8847) and "MPLS Multicast" (8848). The new semantics will be "Downstream Assigned" (8847) and "Upstream Assigned" (8848)". On a practical level, they will still be used for Unicast and Multicast respectively, however the change has been made to clarify which Label Switch Router (LSR) controls each label space. Each of these label spaces is shared by all MPLS applications. Each space is managed by a label-manager which is responsible for label allocation and reclamation. When a packet is received at the downstream LSR with Ethertype 8847 it is looked up in a table managed by the downstream router. Conversely when a packet is received at the downstream LSR with Ethertype 8848 it is looked up in a table managed by the upstream router. In your liaison to the MFA Forum dated 19-23 June 2006 you say, T-MPLS is intended to be a separate layer network with respect to MPLS. However, T- MPLS will use the same data-link protocol ID (e.g. EtherType), frame format and forwarding semantics for as those defined for MPLS frames. T-MPLS and MPLS cannot coexist on the same "interface" (for example they could not coexist on a single Ethernet VLAN, however they could be multiplexed on to a common Ethernet PHY using separate VLANs). On the face of it, this statement implies that MPLS and T-MPLS are two different things, but that you wish to identify them both using the same Ethertype. The Ethertype is the primary means for multiplexing and distinguishing protocols over Ethernet. The Ethertype identifies the protocol entity that will receive a packet at the layer above. VLANs on the other hand are primarily intended as a service level interface, allowing multiple virtual LANs over a single bridged domain. . If T-MPLS cannot co-exist with MPLS over Ethernet, and T-MPLS is in fact a separate layer network, then it should be identified by its own Ethertype(s), Clear and unambiguous identification is in the best interest of all involved. In particular, if T- MPLS is being architected in such a way that would prevent it from acquiring labels by interacting with a shared label manager, then separate Ethertypes would guarantee that there is no confusion as to which label spaces belong to T-MPLS. Note further that if T-MPLS is being architected in such a way that it can (or could) interact with a shared label manager and could co-exist over the same interface sharing the MPLS label spaces with other MPLS applications, then we would welcome use of the MPLS Ethertypes. We believe that a decision to use the MPLS Ethertypes to point to a label space other than as defined by the MPLS RFCs to be architecturally unsound and ultimately will prove to be limiting to the deployment options available in networks which employ both MPLS and T-MPLS. Sincerely, Loa Andersson Scott Bradner Deborah Brungard Stewart Bryant Adrian Farrel Danny McPherson George Swallow Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 20:08:07 +0000 To: Greg Jones <greg.jones@itu.int> Cc: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, IAB <iab@ietf.org>, Steve Trowbridge <sjtrowbridge@lucent.com>, Malcolm Betts <betts01@nortel.com>, Yoichi Maeda <maeda@ansl.ntt.co.jp>, Ghani Abbas <ghani.abbas@marconi.com>, Houlin Zhao <houlin.zhao@itu.int>, CCAMP mailing list <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>, MPLS mailing list <mpls@lists.ietf.org>, PWE3 mailing list <pwe3@ietf.org> Cc: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.se>, Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>, Deborah Brungard <dbrungard@att.com>, Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com>, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, Danny McPherson <danny@arbor.net>, George Swallow <swallow@cisco.com>, statements@ietf.org From: George Swallow <swallow@cisco.com> Subject: Liaison to ITU-T SG15 Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 16:06:20 -0400 Message-Id: <20060913200620.842742F12BD@swallow-mini-mac.cisco.com> DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; l=6463; t=1158177965; x=1159041965; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=swallow@cisco.com; z=From:George=20Swallow=20<swallow@cisco.com> |Subject:Liaison=20to=20ITU-T=20SG15 |To:Greg=20Jones=20<greg.jones@itu.int>; X=v=3Dcisco.com=3B=20h=3DtYerVQOY20ZZEewydYfLbbJbYkE=3D; b=LPj2dIN/WN+Mv0t7Xl2yoM8TMdqB9yc0c6NFkhvBmE4LIPIWDVUIquwfUmja/AgAPJOn+CJs SXmS/PZm/6ThVCESFKLjL6+XljBQyrxlHVMZe7+zSRidtN2F+Of831sB; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com; header.From=swallow@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com verified; ); Liaison Statement Submission Date: 2006-09-13 From: Loa Andersson (IETF Liaison to ITU-T, MPLS; IETF MPLS WG Chair; loa@pi.se) Scott Bradner (IETF Liaison to ITU-T, sob@harvard.edu) Deborah Brungard (IETF CCAMP WG Chair, dbrungard@att.com) Stewart Bryant (IETF PWE3 WG Chair, stbryant@cisco.com) Adrian Farrel (IETF Liaison to SG15, CCAMP WG Chair, adrian@olddog.co.uk) Danny McPherson (IETF PWE3 WG Chair, danny@arbor.net) George Swallow (IETF MPLS WG Chair, swallow@cisco.com) To: ITU-T Study Group 15; Greg Jones (greg.jones@itu.int) CC: IESG (iesg@ietf.org) IAB (iab@ietf.org) Steve Trowbridge (sjtrowbridge@lucent.com) Malcolm Betts (betts01@nortel.com) Yoichi Maeda (maeda@ansl.ntt.co.jp) Ghani Abbas (ghani.abbas@marconi.com) Houlin Zhao (houlin.zhao@itu.int) CCAMP mailing list (ccamp@ops.ietf.org) MPLS mailing list (mpls@lists.ietf.org) PWE3 mailing list (pwe3@ietf.org) Re: T-MPLS use of the MPLS Ethertypes Response Contact: George Swallow Technical Contact: George Swallow Purpose: For action Deadline: 2006-10-13 We would like to thank you for your response to our liaison. We feel that through the liaison activity and the Ottawa meeting we have entered into a productive and useful dialogue. We are particularly pleased by your positive reaction to most of our concerns. We do, however, once again, request documentation of the problem that T-MPLS solves. We feel that this documentation is fundamental to a proper review of the T-MPLS architecture, protocol requirements, and any future solutions, and we advise the ITU-T not to present any T-MPLS Recommendations for consent until work on a T-MPLS problem statement is well advanced. Further, a full reference diagram of the interfaces and services of the T-MPLS network would be most useful. We understand that the direct adaptation of an IP/MPLS client over a T-MPLS server is still at a very preliminary stage. However, some understanding of the client/server relationship is necessary in order to adequately evaluate architectural decisions currently being made in G.8110.1. The most immediate concern is the proposed use of the MPLS Ethertypes. In your liaison to the MFA Forum dated 19-23 June 2006 you say, First we would like to call your attention to the fact that we are in the process of modifying the semantics of the two Ethertypes used by MPLS. Currently their designations are "MPLS Unicast" (8847) and "MPLS Multicast" (8848). The new semantics will be "Downstream Assigned" (8847) and "Upstream Assigned" (8848)". On a practical level, they will still be used for Unicast and Multicast respectively, however the change has been made to clarify which Label Switch Router (LSR) controls each label space. Each of these label spaces is shared by all MPLS applications. Each space is managed by a label-manager which is responsible for label allocation and reclamation. When a packet is received at the downstream LSR with Ethertype 8847 it is looked up in a table managed by the downstream router. Conversely when a packet is received at the downstream LSR with Ethertype 8848 it is looked up in a table managed by the upstream router. In your liaison to the MFA Forum dated 19-23 June 2006 you say, T-MPLS is intended to be a separate layer network with respect to MPLS. However, T- MPLS will use the same data-link protocol ID (e.g. EtherType), frame format and forwarding semantics for as those defined for MPLS frames. T-MPLS and MPLS cannot coexist on the same "interface" (for example they could not coexist on a single Ethernet VLAN, however they could be multiplexed on to a common Ethernet PHY using separate VLANs). On the face of it, this statement implies that MPLS and T-MPLS are two different things, but that you wish to identify them both using the same Ethertype. The Ethertype is the primary means for multiplexing and distinguishing protocols over Ethernet. The Ethertype identifies the protocol entity that will receive a packet at the layer above. VLANs on the other hand are primarily intended as a service level interface, allowing multiple virtual LANs over a single bridged domain. . If T-MPLS cannot co-exist with MPLS over Ethernet, and T-MPLS is in fact a separate layer network, then it should be identified by its own Ethertype(s), Clear and unambiguous identification is in the best interest of all involved. In particular, if T- MPLS is being architected in such a way that would prevent it from acquiring labels by interacting with a shared label manager, then separate Ethertypes would guarantee that there is no confusion as to which label spaces belong to T-MPLS. Note further that if T-MPLS is being architected in such a way that it can (or could) interact with a shared label manager and could co-exist over the same interface sharing the MPLS label spaces with other MPLS applications, then we would welcome use of the MPLS Ethertypes. We believe that a decision to use the MPLS Ethertypes to point to a label space other than as defined by the MPLS RFCs to be architecturally unsound and ultimately will prove to be limiting to the deployment options available in networks which employ both MPLS and T-MPLS. Sincerely, Loa Andersson Scott Bradner Deborah Brungard Stewart Bryant Adrian Farrel Danny McPherson George Swallow ======================================================================== George Swallow Cisco Systems (978) 936-1398 1414 Massachusetts Avenue Boxborough, MA 01719 Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 12:41:08 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C6D668.70B66A24" Subject: PROTECTION Object in draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-e2e-signaling Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 08:39:08 -0400 Message-ID: <0679BA70A2F59E49B186858B47F4595C4E015B@viper.sycamorenet.com> Thread-Topic: PROTECTION Object in draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-e2e-signaling Thread-Index: AcbWaHExSeMNt+mUQjmXewMnDSPEqg== From: "Pandian, Vijay" <Vijay.Pandian@sycamorenet.com> To: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C6D668.70B66A24 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, =20 What is the rationale behind defining a new C-Type ( C-Type =3D 2, = suggested value, TBA by IANA) for the PROTECTION Object in the e2e draft = instead of extending C-Type =3D 1 defined in rfc3473? =20 Should we consider C-Type =3D 1 as obsolete? =20 Regards, =20 Vijay =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C6D668.70B66A24 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; = charset=3Diso-8859-1"> <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1543" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20 class=3D026182912-12092006>Hi,</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20 class=3D026182912-12092006></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN class=3D026182912-12092006>What = is the=20 rationale behind defining a new C-Type ( C-Type =3D 2, suggested value, = TBA by=20 IANA) for the PROTECTION Object in the e2e draft instead of=20 extending C-Type =3D 1 defined in rfc3473?</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20 class=3D026182912-12092006></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN class=3D026182912-12092006>Should = we consider=20 C-Type =3D 1 as obsolete?</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20 class=3D026182912-12092006></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20 class=3D026182912-12092006>Regards,</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20 class=3D026182912-12092006></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20 class=3D026182912-12092006>Vijay</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20 class=3D026182912-12092006></SPAN></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C6D668.70B66A24-- Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 14:51:47 +0000 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-15.txt Message-Id: <E1GLhg9-0000UL-Qx@stiedprstage1.ietf.org> Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 10:50:01 -0400 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Common Control and Measurement Plane Working Group of the IETF. Title : Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS)Label Switching Router (LSR) Management Information Base Author(s) : T. Nadeau, A. Farrel Filename : draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-15.txt Pages : 42 Date : 2006-9-8 This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. In particular, it describes managed objects to configure and/or monitor a Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Label Switching Router (LSR). A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-15.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-15.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-15.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2006-9-8053424.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-15.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-15.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2006-9-8053424.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 14:51:38 +0000 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-tc-mib-11.txt Message-Id: <E1GLhg9-0000UF-PY@stiedprstage1.ietf.org> Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 10:50:01 -0400 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Common Control and Measurement Plane Working Group of the IETF. Title : Definitions of Textual Conventions for Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Management Author(s) : T. Nadeau, A. Farrel Filename : draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-tc-mib-11.txt Pages : 9 Date : 2006-9-8 This document defines a Management Information Base (MIB) module which contains Textual Conventions to represent commonly used Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) management information. The intent is that these TEXTUAL CONVENTIONS (TCs) will be imported and used in GMPLS related MIB modules that would otherwise define their own representations. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-tc-mib-11.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-tc-mib-11.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-tc-mib-11.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2006-9-8053019.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-tc-mib-11.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-tc-mib-11.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2006-9-8053019.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 14:51:30 +0000 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-vcat-lcas-00.txt Message-Id: <E1GLhg9-0000Ua-Ua@stiedprstage1.ietf.org> Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 10:50:01 -0400 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Common Control and Measurement Plane Working Group of the IETF. Title : Operating Virtual Concatenation (VCAT) and the Link Capacity Adjustment Scheme (LCAS) with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Author(s) : G. Bernstein, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-vcat-lcas-00.txt Pages : 14 Date : 2006-9-8 This document describes requirements for, and use of, the Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) control plane in conjunction with the Virtual Concatenation (VCAT) layer 1 inverse multiplexing mechanism and its companion Link Capacity Adjustment Scheme (LCAS) which can be used for hitless dynamic resizing of the inverse multiplex group. These techniques apply to the Optical Transport Network (OTN), Synchronous Optical Network (SONET), Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH), and Plesiochronous Digital Hierarchy (PDH) signals. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-vcat-lcas-00.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-vcat-lcas-00.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-vcat-lcas-00.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2006-9-8055726.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-vcat-lcas-00.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-vcat-lcas-00.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2006-9-8055726.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 14:51:22 +0000 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-te-mib-16.txt Message-Id: <E1GLhg9-0000U9-O7@stiedprstage1.ietf.org> Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 10:50:01 -0400 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Common Control and Measurement Plane Working Group of the IETF. Title : Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering Management Information Base Author(s) : T. Nadeau, A. Farrel Filename : draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-te-mib-16.txt Pages : 59 Date : 2006-9-8 This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. In particular, it describes managed objects for Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) based traffic engineering. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-te-mib-16.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-te-mib-16.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-te-mib-16.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2006-9-8052720.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-te-mib-16.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-te-mib-16.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2006-9-8052720.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Thu, 07 Sep 2006 22:52:03 +0000 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-graceful-shutdown-00.txt Message-Id: <E1GLSh8-00050d-1B@stiedprstage1.ietf.org> Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2006 18:50:02 -0400 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Common Control and Measurement Plane Working Group of the IETF. Title : Graceful Shutdown in GMPLS Traffic Engineering Networks Author(s) : Z. Ali, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-graceful-shutdown-00.txt Pages : 9 Date : 2006-9-7 GMPLS-TE Graceful shutdown is a method for explicitly notifying the nodes in a Traffic Engineering (TE) enabled network that the TE capability on a link or on an entire Label Switching Router (LSR) is going to be disabled. GMPLS-TE graceful shutdown mechanisms are tailored towards addressing the planned outage in the network. This document provides requirements and protocol mechanisms so as to reduce/eliminate traffic disruption in the event of a planned shutdown of a network resource. These operations are equally applicable for both MPLS and its GMPLS extensions. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-graceful-shutdown-00.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-graceful-shutdown-00.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-graceful-shutdown-00.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2006-9-7152708.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-graceful-shutdown-00.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-graceful-shutdown-00.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2006-9-7152708.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 19:51:06 +0000 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec-05.txt Message-Id: <E1GL3PO-00029E-EY@stiedprstage1.ietf.org> Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 15:50:02 -0400 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Common Control and Measurement Plane Working Group of the IETF. Title : GMPLS - Communication of Alarm Information Author(s) : L. Berger Filename : draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec-05.txt Pages : 19 Date : 2006-9-6 This document describes an extension to Generalized MPLS (Multi- Protocol Label Switching) signaling to support communication of alarm information. GMPLS signaling already supports the control of alarm reporting, but not the communication of alarm information. This document presents both a functional description and GMPLS-RSVP specifics of such an extension. This document also proposes modification of the RSVP ERROR_SPEC object. This document updates RFC 3473 "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions" through the addition of new, optional protocol elements. It does not change, and is fully backward compatible with the procedures specified in RFC 3473. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec-05.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec-05.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec-05.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2006-9-6124138.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec-05.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec-05.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2006-9-6124138.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 17:41:25 +0000 Message-ID: <012601c6d1db$91afd320$08849ed9@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> To: "Lucy Yong" <lucyyong@huawei.com> Cc: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>, <gels@rtg.ietf.org> Subject: Potential for liaison *to* IEEE Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 18:38:08 +0100 Organization: Old Dog Consulting MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Lucy, > In 66th IETF meeting, there is an intention to send a liaison letter to > IEEE > regarding what control plane could control/manage in Ethernet data plane. I do not recall any intention by CCAMP to send a liaison at this time. The process that we will follow in CCAMP is clearly (I believe) documented in my email of 17th July to the CCAMP and GELS mailing lists. See https://ops.ietf.org/lists/ccamp/ccamp.2006/msg00489.html You will see that a liaison from CCAMP does not show up until step 4 in the process. > This liaison from IEEE clearly states that IEEE has not examined MAC > address > encapsulation in conjunction with VLAN tagging, thus this is not accepted > now. It also clearly states that using two VLAN tags simultaneously is not > allowed. > > Hence, now, standard Ethernet data plane bridge/switch based on MAC or > VLAN only. > Do we still need a liaison to IEEE? Yes, when we get to step 4 in the process we will still need a liaison. Thanks, Adrian Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 17:41:17 +0000 Message-ID: <012901c6d1db$a01101f0$08849ed9@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> To: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Subject: Cross-posting on GELS: STOP AND THINK Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 18:40:44 +0100 Organization: Old Dog Consulting MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all, Stop and think. You are all clever people. Don't just hit reply. Check the recipients before you send. Please limit your postings discussing the GELS data plane to the GELS mailing list. Do not send mail on this topic to the CCAMP list. Thanks. Adrian Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 17:30:42 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: IEEE 802.1 WG liaison letter to the IETF Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 20:26:56 +0200 Message-ID: <D3C85156A12AAB4DB23F598007E9826D228C6C@dove.seabridge.co.il> Thread-Topic: IEEE 802.1 WG liaison letter to the IETF Thread-Index: AcbR4Nue2GF46UEtSDCxZSR8ObNMcAAAKB8w From: "Nurit Sprecher" <nurit.sprecher@SeabridgeNetworks.com> To: "Loa Andersson" <loa@pi.se> Cc: "Don Fedyk" <dwfedyk@nortel.com>, "Lucy Yong" <lucyyong@huawei.com>, "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>, <gels@rtg.ietf.org>, "Nurit Sprecher" <nurit.sprecher@SeabridgeNetworks.com> IMO, it is the same. The 802.1ad defines that "A conformant S-VLAN component may implement any of the options specified for a VLAN-aware bridge component (5.4.1), and may a) allow translation of VIDs through support of a VID Translation Table (6.7) on each Port.".=20 -----Original Message----- From: Loa Andersson [mailto:loa@pi.se]=20 Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 19:19 To: Nurit Sprecher Cc: Don Fedyk; Lucy Yong; Adrian Farrel; ccamp@ops.ietf.org; gels@rtg.ietf.org Subject: Re: IEEE 802.1 WG liaison letter to the IETF All, I've been looking at this sentence in the liaison: Translation of 802.1Q S-VLAN tags (with 12 bit VIDs) is supported at S-tagged service interfaces, as an option, by the IEEE Std 802.1ad Provider Bridging amendment to IEEE Std 802.1Q. Could someone explain if there is a difference between a "S-tagged service interface" and a "S-tagged interface"? /Loa Nurit Sprecher wrote: > Hi Don, > I did not say the that liaison says that the IET should focus on the=20 > 12 bit label encoding technique. I said that the IEEE confirmed that=20 > the 12-bit S-VID translation is a standard behavior. > The IETF got a decision not to define the data plane but to get a=20 > confirmation from the IEEE for the standard behavior. This was=20 > achieved regarding the 12-bit label encoding technique and we can go=20 > on with the work already initiated on this. > Regards, > Nurit. >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Don Fedyk [mailto:dwfedyk@nortel.com] > Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 18:14 > To: Nurit Sprecher; Lucy Yong; Adrian Farrel; ccamp@ops.ietf.org;=20 > gels@rtg.ietf.org > Subject: RE: IEEE 802.1 WG liaison letter to the IETF >=20 > Nurit >=20 > Please do not try to interpret the liaison. The Liaison says nothing=20 > about >=20 > "The IETF should now focus on the 12 bit label encoding technique". >=20 > It actually states: >=20 > "The protocol entities that make use of a given Ethertype are=20 > characterized not just by the format of packets 'on the wire' and=20 > rules for their interchange, but also by their defined interfaces to=20 > adjacent entities in the interface stack and the MAC relay entity as=20 > well as by their local management interface interactions" >=20 > In other words just looking like an Ethernet packet with a 12 bit VID=20 > (or not) on the wire is not the only criterion. The behavior an impact > on the Ethernet switch needs to be taken into account. In other words=20 > all schemes including your 12 bit VID still need to be discussed to=20 > the impact on the interfaces as relays on Ethernet hardware. >=20 > Regards, > Don > =20 >=20 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org >> This liaison was imitated by the IEEE intentionally to address the=20 >> same question that we wanted to ask the IEEE. >> The liaison clearly states that (currently) the only standard=20 >> behavior >=20 >> is the 12-bit VID translation, and the IETF should now focus on the=20 >> 12-bit label encoding technique for GELS. >> Regards, >> Nurit. >> > <SNIP> >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 -- Loa Andersson Principal Networking Architect Acreo AB phone: +46 8 632 77 14 Isafjordsgatan 22 mobile: +46 739 81 21 64 Kista, Sweden email: loa.andersson@acreo.se loa@pi.se Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 17:21:55 +0000 Message-ID: <44FF02F0.90807@pi.se> Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 19:18:40 +0200 From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.se> Organization: Acreo AB User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (Windows/20060719) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Nurit Sprecher <nurit.sprecher@SeabridgeNetworks.com> CC: Don Fedyk <dwfedyk@nortel.com>, Lucy Yong <lucyyong@huawei.com>, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, ccamp@ops.ietf.org, gels@rtg.ietf.org Subject: Re: IEEE 802.1 WG liaison letter to the IETF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit All, I've been looking at this sentence in the liaison: Translation of 802.1Q S-VLAN tags (with 12 bit VIDs) is supported at S-tagged service interfaces, as an option, by the IEEE Std 802.1ad Provider Bridging amendment to IEEE Std 802.1Q. Could someone explain if there is a difference between a "S-tagged service interface" and a "S-tagged interface"? /Loa Nurit Sprecher wrote: > Hi Don, > I did not say the that liaison says that the IET should focus on the 12 > bit label encoding technique. I said that the IEEE confirmed that the > 12-bit S-VID translation is a standard behavior. > The IETF got a decision not to define the data plane but to get a > confirmation from the IEEE for the standard behavior. This was achieved > regarding the 12-bit label encoding technique and we can go on with the > work already initiated on this. > Regards, > Nurit. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Don Fedyk [mailto:dwfedyk@nortel.com] > Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 18:14 > To: Nurit Sprecher; Lucy Yong; Adrian Farrel; ccamp@ops.ietf.org; > gels@rtg.ietf.org > Subject: RE: IEEE 802.1 WG liaison letter to the IETF > > Nurit > > Please do not try to interpret the liaison. The Liaison says nothing > about > > "The IETF should now focus on the 12 bit label encoding technique". > > It actually states: > > "The protocol entities that make use of a given Ethertype are > characterized not just by the format of packets 'on the wire' and rules > for their interchange, but also by their defined interfaces to adjacent > entities in the interface stack and the MAC relay entity as well as by > their local management interface interactions" > > In other words just looking like an Ethernet packet with a 12 bit VID > (or not) on the wire is not the only criterion. The behavior an impact > on the Ethernet switch needs to be taken into account. In other words > all schemes including your 12 bit VID still need to be discussed to the > impact on the interfaces as relays on Ethernet hardware. > > Regards, > Don > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org >> This liaison was imitated by the IEEE intentionally to address the >> same question that we wanted to ask the IEEE. >> The liaison clearly states that (currently) the only standard behavior > >> is the 12-bit VID translation, and the IETF should now focus on the >> 12-bit label encoding technique for GELS. >> Regards, >> Nurit. >> > <SNIP> > > > > -- Loa Andersson Principal Networking Architect Acreo AB phone: +46 8 632 77 14 Isafjordsgatan 22 mobile: +46 739 81 21 64 Kista, Sweden email: loa.andersson@acreo.se loa@pi.se Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 17:01:52 +0000 Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 12:01:37 -0500 From: Lucy Yong <lucyyong@huawei.com> Subject: RE: IEEE 802.1 WG liaison letter to the IETF To: 'Nurit Sprecher' <nurit.sprecher@seabridgenetworks.com>, 'Don Fedyk' <dwfedyk@nortel.com>, 'Adrian Farrel' <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, ccamp@ops.ietf.org, gels@rtg.ietf.org Message-id: <001501c6d1d6$1daa62b0$a5087c0a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Thread-index: AcbRvleUT//9kWH6RDSiyChwOn4NKgACDbpAAANpROAAAYDNUAAAMTuwAAFyVzA= Nurit&Don, It seems that label encoding technique could relate to the data plane semantics based on your discussions. The question is if IEEE allows and follows other SDO's standardized VLAN label encoding? Regards, Lucy -----Original Message----- From: gels-bounces@rtg.ietf.org [mailto:gels-bounces@rtg.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Nurit Sprecher Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 12:42 PM To: Don Fedyk; Lucy Yong; Adrian Farrel; ccamp@ops.ietf.org; gels@rtg.ietf.org Cc: Nurit Sprecher Subject: RE: IEEE 802.1 WG liaison letter to the IETF Hi Don, I did not say the that liaison says that the IET should focus on the 12 bit label encoding technique. I said that the IEEE confirmed that the 12-bit S-VID translation is a standard behavior. The IETF got a decision not to define the data plane but to get a confirmation from the IEEE for the standard behavior. This was achieved regarding the 12-bit label encoding technique and we can go on with the work already initiated on this. Regards, Nurit. -----Original Message----- From: Don Fedyk [mailto:dwfedyk@nortel.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 18:14 To: Nurit Sprecher; Lucy Yong; Adrian Farrel; ccamp@ops.ietf.org; gels@rtg.ietf.org Subject: RE: IEEE 802.1 WG liaison letter to the IETF Nurit Please do not try to interpret the liaison. The Liaison says nothing about "The IETF should now focus on the 12 bit label encoding technique". It actually states: "The protocol entities that make use of a given Ethertype are characterized not just by the format of packets 'on the wire' and rules for their interchange, but also by their defined interfaces to adjacent entities in the interface stack and the MAC relay entity as well as by their local management interface interactions" In other words just looking like an Ethernet packet with a 12 bit VID (or not) on the wire is not the only criterion. The behavior an impact on the Ethernet switch needs to be taken into account. In other words all schemes including your 12 bit VID still need to be discussed to the impact on the interfaces as relays on Ethernet hardware. Regards, Don > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org > This liaison was imitated by the IEEE intentionally to address the > same question that we wanted to ask the IEEE. > The liaison clearly states that (currently) the only standard behavior > is the 12-bit VID translation, and the IETF should now focus on the > 12-bit label encoding technique for GELS. > Regards, > Nurit. > <SNIP> _______________________________________________ gels mailing list gels@rtg.ietf.org https://rtg.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gels Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 16:56:05 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: IEEE 802.1 WG liaison letter to the IETF Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 19:52:55 +0200 Message-ID: <D3C85156A12AAB4DB23F598007E9826D228C5D@dove.seabridge.co.il> Thread-Topic: IEEE 802.1 WG liaison letter to the IETF Thread-Index: AcbRxiolXU2gPEG8TdC5GktVFBdvxQACbTSwAAEpNoAAAClbUAABZgnwAABDzAAAAcokkAABdMzg From: "Nurit Sprecher" <nurit.sprecher@SeabridgeNetworks.com> To: "Don Fedyk" <dwfedyk@nortel.com> Cc: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> You are right. As I already mentioned, it happened by mistake. -----Original Message----- From: Don Fedyk [mailto:dwfedyk@nortel.com]=20 Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 18:53 To: Nurit Sprecher Cc: Adrian Farrel; ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: RE: IEEE 802.1 WG liaison letter to the IETF Hi Nurit=20 I believe the Chairs asked us to not to cross post to both GELS and CCAMP as well so the whole discussion of Data Plane goes to GELS only. Regards, Don =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Nurit Sprecher [mailto:nurit.sprecher@SeabridgeNetworks.com] > Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 1:43 PM > To: Fedyk, Don (BL60:1A00) > Cc: Adrian Farrel; ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Nurit Sprecher > Subject: RE: IEEE 802.1 WG liaison letter to the IETF >=20 > Thanks. I did not realize that the GELS is not Cced.=20 >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Don Fedyk [mailto:dwfedyk@nortel.com] > Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 18:26 > To: Nurit Sprecher; Adrian Farrel; ccamp@ops.ietf.org > Cc: Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be > Subject: RE: IEEE 802.1 WG liaison letter to the IETF >=20 > Nurit >=20 > We should not talk about the IEEE data plane on the CCAMP list please=20 > see Adrian's message for a reminder: >=20 > https://ops.ietf.org/lists/ccamp/ccamp.2006/msg00489.html >=20 > So please take your discussion to GELS. You and I can continue to=20 > Disagree there if you like. >=20 > Regards, > Don >=20 > <snip> >=20 >=20 >=20 Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 16:53:31 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: IEEE 802.1 WG liaison letter to the IETF Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 12:53:18 -0400 Message-ID: <34B3EAA5B3066A42914D28C5ECF5FEA40A6E8BB6@zrtphxm2.corp.nortel.com> Thread-Topic: IEEE 802.1 WG liaison letter to the IETF Thread-Index: AcbRxiolXU2gPEG8TdC5GktVFBdvxQACbTSwAAEpNoAAAClbUAABZgnwAABDzAAAAcokkA== From: "Don Fedyk" <dwfedyk@nortel.com> To: "Nurit Sprecher" <nurit.sprecher@SeabridgeNetworks.com> Cc: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Hi Nurit=20 I believe the Chairs asked us to not to cross post to both GELS and CCAMP as well so the whole discussion of Data Plane goes to GELS only. Regards, Don =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Nurit Sprecher [mailto:nurit.sprecher@SeabridgeNetworks.com]=20 > Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 1:43 PM > To: Fedyk, Don (BL60:1A00) > Cc: Adrian Farrel; ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Nurit Sprecher > Subject: RE: IEEE 802.1 WG liaison letter to the IETF >=20 > Thanks. I did not realize that the GELS is not Cced.=20 >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Don Fedyk [mailto:dwfedyk@nortel.com] > Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 18:26 > To: Nurit Sprecher; Adrian Farrel; ccamp@ops.ietf.org > Cc: Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be > Subject: RE: IEEE 802.1 WG liaison letter to the IETF >=20 > Nurit >=20 > We should not talk about the IEEE data plane on the CCAMP=20 > list please see Adrian's message for a reminder:=20 >=20 > https://ops.ietf.org/lists/ccamp/ccamp.2006/msg00489.html >=20 > So please take your discussion to GELS. You and I can=20 > continue to Disagree there if you like. =20 >=20 > Regards, > Don=20 >=20 > <snip>=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 16:46:14 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: IEEE 802.1 WG liaison letter to the IETF Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 19:43:12 +0200 Message-ID: <D3C85156A12AAB4DB23F598007E9826D228C52@dove.seabridge.co.il> Thread-Topic: IEEE 802.1 WG liaison letter to the IETF Thread-Index: AcbRxiolXU2gPEG8TdC5GktVFBdvxQACbTSwAAEpNoAAAClbUAABZgnwAABDzAA= From: "Nurit Sprecher" <nurit.sprecher@SeabridgeNetworks.com> To: "Don Fedyk" <dwfedyk@nortel.com> Cc: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>, "Nurit Sprecher" <nurit.sprecher@SeabridgeNetworks.com> Thanks. I did not realize that the GELS is not Cced.=20 -----Original Message----- From: Don Fedyk [mailto:dwfedyk@nortel.com]=20 Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 18:26 To: Nurit Sprecher; Adrian Farrel; ccamp@ops.ietf.org Cc: Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be Subject: RE: IEEE 802.1 WG liaison letter to the IETF Nurit We should not talk about the IEEE data plane on the CCAMP list please see Adrian's message for a reminder:=20 https://ops.ietf.org/lists/ccamp/ccamp.2006/msg00489.html So please take your discussion to GELS. You and I can continue to Disagree there if you like. =20 Regards, Don=20 <snip>=20 Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 16:45:31 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: IEEE 802.1 WG liaison letter to the IETF Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 19:42:01 +0200 Message-ID: <D3C85156A12AAB4DB23F598007E9826D228C50@dove.seabridge.co.il> Thread-Topic: IEEE 802.1 WG liaison letter to the IETF Thread-Index: AcbRvleUT//9kWH6RDSiyChwOn4NKgACDbpAAANpROAAAYDNUAAAMTuw From: "Nurit Sprecher" <nurit.sprecher@SeabridgeNetworks.com> To: "Don Fedyk" <dwfedyk@nortel.com>, "Lucy Yong" <lucyyong@huawei.com>, "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>, <gels@rtg.ietf.org> Cc: "Nurit Sprecher" <nurit.sprecher@SeabridgeNetworks.com> Hi Don, I did not say the that liaison says that the IET should focus on the 12 bit label encoding technique. I said that the IEEE confirmed that the 12-bit S-VID translation is a standard behavior.=20 The IETF got a decision not to define the data plane but to get a confirmation from the IEEE for the standard behavior. This was achieved regarding the 12-bit label encoding technique and we can go on with the work already initiated on this. Regards, Nurit. -----Original Message----- From: Don Fedyk [mailto:dwfedyk@nortel.com]=20 Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 18:14 To: Nurit Sprecher; Lucy Yong; Adrian Farrel; ccamp@ops.ietf.org; gels@rtg.ietf.org Subject: RE: IEEE 802.1 WG liaison letter to the IETF Nurit Please do not try to interpret the liaison. The Liaison says nothing about=20 "The IETF should now focus on the 12 bit label encoding technique". It actually states: "The protocol entities that make use of a given Ethertype are characterized not just by the format of packets 'on the wire' and rules for their interchange, but also by their defined interfaces to adjacent entities in the interface stack and the MAC relay entity as well as by their local management interface interactions" In other words just looking like an Ethernet packet with a 12 bit VID (or not) on the wire is not the only criterion. The behavior an impact on the Ethernet switch needs to be taken into account. In other words all schemes including your 12 bit VID still need to be discussed to the impact on the interfaces as relays on Ethernet hardware. Regards, Don=20 =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org > This liaison was imitated by the IEEE intentionally to address the=20 > same question that we wanted to ask the IEEE. > The liaison clearly states that (currently) the only standard behavior > is the 12-bit VID translation, and the IETF should now focus on the=20 > 12-bit label encoding technique for GELS. > Regards, > Nurit. >=20 <SNIP> Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 16:26:04 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: IEEE 802.1 WG liaison letter to the IETF Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 12:25:31 -0400 Message-ID: <34B3EAA5B3066A42914D28C5ECF5FEA40A6E8B28@zrtphxm2.corp.nortel.com> Thread-Topic: IEEE 802.1 WG liaison letter to the IETF Thread-Index: AcbRxiolXU2gPEG8TdC5GktVFBdvxQACbTSwAAEpNoAAAClbUAABZgnw From: "Don Fedyk" <dwfedyk@nortel.com> To: "Nurit Sprecher" <nurit.sprecher@SeabridgeNetworks.com>, "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Cc: <Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be> Nurit We should not talk about the IEEE data plane on the CCAMP list please see Adrian's message for a reminder:=20 https://ops.ietf.org/lists/ccamp/ccamp.2006/msg00489.html So please take your discussion to GELS. You and I can continue to Disagree there if you like. =20 Regards, Don=20 <snip>=20 Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 16:15:23 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: IEEE 802.1 WG liaison letter to the IETF Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 12:14:28 -0400 Message-ID: <34B3EAA5B3066A42914D28C5ECF5FEA40A6E8ADE@zrtphxm2.corp.nortel.com> Thread-Topic: IEEE 802.1 WG liaison letter to the IETF Thread-Index: AcbRvleUT//9kWH6RDSiyChwOn4NKgACDbpAAANpROAAAYDNUA== From: "Don Fedyk" <dwfedyk@nortel.com> To: "Nurit Sprecher" <nurit.sprecher@SeabridgeNetworks.com>, "Lucy Yong" <lucyyong@huawei.com>, "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>, <gels@rtg.ietf.org> Nurit Please do not try to interpret the liaison. The Liaison says nothing about=20 "The IETF should now focus on the 12 bit label encoding technique". It actually states: "The protocol entities that make use of a given Ethertype are characterized not just by the format of packets 'on the wire' and rules for their interchange, but also by their defined interfaces to adjacent entities in the interface stack and the MAC relay entity as well as by their local management interface interactions" In other words just looking like an Ethernet packet with a 12 bit VID (or not) on the wire is not the only criterion. The behavior an impact on the Ethernet switch needs to be taken into account. In other words all schemes including your 12 bit VID still need to be discussed to the impact on the interfaces as relays on Ethernet hardware. Regards, Don=20 =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org=20 > This liaison was imitated by the IEEE intentionally to=20 > address the same question that we wanted to ask the IEEE.=20 > The liaison clearly states that (currently) the only standard=20 > behavior is the 12-bit VID translation, and the IETF should=20 > now focus on the 12-bit label encoding technique for GELS. > Regards, > Nurit. >=20 <SNIP> Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 16:07:50 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: IEEE 802.1 WG liaison letter to the IETF Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 19:04:12 +0200 Message-ID: <D3C85156A12AAB4DB23F598007E9826D228C28@dove.seabridge.co.il> Thread-Topic: IEEE 802.1 WG liaison letter to the IETF Thread-Index: AcbRxiolXU2gPEG8TdC5GktVFBdvxQACbTSwAAEpNoAAAClbUA== From: "Nurit Sprecher" <nurit.sprecher@SeabridgeNetworks.com> To: "Don Fedyk" <dwfedyk@nortel.com>, "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Cc: <Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be>, "Nurit Sprecher" <nurit.sprecher@SeabridgeNetworks.com> Hi Don,=20 It is clearly stated in the liaison that "We have not examined the detailed architectural ramifications of MAC address encapsulation in conjunction with VLAN tagging, beyond the uses presently being standardized as P802.1ah Provider Backbone Bridging.". The IEEE should still approve this kind of behavior (turning of broadcast and othe linkages, etc. as you mention below). That was exactly the decision in the last IETF meeting.=20 In the last IETF CCAMP meeting it was decided that any further work on GELS should first be approved by the IEEE 802.1 community. Otherwise, we re-start with the discussion=20 Regards, Nurit. -----Original Message----- From: Don Fedyk [mailto:dwfedyk@nortel.com]=20 Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 17:55 To: Nurit Sprecher; Adrian Farrel; ccamp@ops.ietf.org Cc: Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be Subject: RE: IEEE 802.1 WG liaison letter to the IETF Hi Nurit=20 It is true that the data plane 12-bit S-VID translation is part of standards, but then so is using a VID/MAC as a static configured path known as PBT.=20 However in order to have the above schemes work with the existing Ethernet control plane enabled at a minimum partitioning of the VID space, turning of broadcast and other linkages between the Ethernet control plane still need to be standardized. We have discussed all this before. Regards, Don=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org > [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Nurit Sprecher > Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 12:37 PM > To: Adrian Farrel; ccamp@ops.ietf.org > Cc: Nurit Sprecher; Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be > Subject: RE: IEEE 802.1 WG liaison letter to the IETF >=20 > Hi, > Please note that according to the liaison from the IEEE, currently the > only standard behavior is the 12-bit S-VID translation. > That means that we can go on with the work done on the 12-bits=20 > Ethernet label encoding technique. We have the certification. > Regards, > Nurit. >=20 >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org > [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel > Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 16:05 > To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org > Subject: Fw: IEEE 802.1 WG liaison letter to the IETF >=20 > Hi, >=20 > Those of you working on GELS stuff may find material in this liaison=20 > (which will inevitably also get posted on the IETF site). >=20 > Adrian > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com> > To: "IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>; <iab@ietf.org> > Cc: <l2vpn@ietf.org>; <ccamp-chairs@tools.ietf.org>; "Tony Jeffree"=20 > <tony@jeffree.co.uk> > Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 2:55 PM > Subject: IEEE 802.1 WG liaison letter to the IETF >=20 >=20 >=20 > The IEEE 802.1 Working Group approved the following liaison letter to=20 > the IETF, containing clarifications in response to several queries=20 > related to the use of IEEE 802.1Q VLAN tags. >=20 > http://www.ieee802.org/1/files/public/docs2006/liaison-contrib-to-ietf-m ef-dsl-forum-0706.pdf >=20 > Please distribute this letter to the interested Working Groups that=20 > are not included in the distribution list. >=20 > Dan > (wearing the hat of IEEE 802.1 WG liaison to the IETF) >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 15:55:06 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: IEEE 802.1 WG liaison letter to the IETF Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 11:54:48 -0400 Message-ID: <34B3EAA5B3066A42914D28C5ECF5FEA40A6E8A37@zrtphxm2.corp.nortel.com> Thread-Topic: IEEE 802.1 WG liaison letter to the IETF Thread-Index: AcbRxiolXU2gPEG8TdC5GktVFBdvxQACbTSwAAEpNoA= From: "Don Fedyk" <dwfedyk@nortel.com> To: "Nurit Sprecher" <nurit.sprecher@SeabridgeNetworks.com>, "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Cc: <Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be> Hi Nurit=20 It is true that the data plane 12-bit S-VID translation is part of standards, but then so is using a VID/MAC as a static configured path known as PBT.=20 However in order to have the above schemes work with the existing Ethernet control plane enabled at a minimum partitioning of the VID space, turning of broadcast and other linkages between the Ethernet control plane still need to be standardized. We have discussed all this before. Regards, Don=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org=20 > [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Nurit Sprecher > Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 12:37 PM > To: Adrian Farrel; ccamp@ops.ietf.org > Cc: Nurit Sprecher; Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be > Subject: RE: IEEE 802.1 WG liaison letter to the IETF >=20 > Hi, > Please note that according to the liaison from the IEEE,=20 > currently the only standard behavior is the 12-bit S-VID translation.=20 > That means that we can go on with the work done on the=20 > 12-bits Ethernet label encoding technique. We have the certification. > Regards, > Nurit. >=20 >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org=20 > [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel > Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 16:05 > To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org > Subject: Fw: IEEE 802.1 WG liaison letter to the IETF >=20 > Hi, >=20 > Those of you working on GELS stuff may find material in this=20 > liaison (which will inevitably also get posted on the IETF site). >=20 > Adrian > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com> > To: "IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>; <iab@ietf.org> > Cc: <l2vpn@ietf.org>; <ccamp-chairs@tools.ietf.org>; "Tony Jeffree"=20 > <tony@jeffree.co.uk> > Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 2:55 PM > Subject: IEEE 802.1 WG liaison letter to the IETF >=20 >=20 >=20 > The IEEE 802.1 Working Group approved the following liaison=20 > letter to the IETF, containing clarifications in response to=20 > several queries related to the use of IEEE 802.1Q VLAN tags. >=20 > http://www.ieee802.org/1/files/public/docs2006/liaison-contrib -to-ietf-m > ef-dsl-forum-0706.pdf >=20 > Please distribute this letter to the interested Working=20 > Groups that are not included in the distribution list. >=20 > Dan > (wearing the hat of IEEE 802.1 WG liaison to the IETF) >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 15:54:46 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: IEEE 802.1 WG liaison letter to the IETF Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 18:51:32 +0200 Message-ID: <D3C85156A12AAB4DB23F598007E9826D228C11@dove.seabridge.co.il> Thread-Topic: IEEE 802.1 WG liaison letter to the IETF Thread-Index: AcbRvleUT//9kWH6RDSiyChwOn4NKgACDbpAAANpROA= From: "Nurit Sprecher" <nurit.sprecher@SeabridgeNetworks.com> To: "Lucy Yong" <lucyyong@huawei.com>, "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>, <gels@rtg.ietf.org> Cc: "Nurit Sprecher" <nurit.sprecher@SeabridgeNetworks.com> This liaison was imitated by the IEEE intentionally to address the same question that we wanted to ask the IEEE.=20 The liaison clearly states that (currently) the only standard behavior is the 12-bit VID translation, and the IETF should now focus on the 12-bit label encoding technique for GELS. Regards, Nurit. -----Original Message----- From: gels-bounces@rtg.ietf.org [mailto:gels-bounces@rtg.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lucy Yong Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 17:46 To: 'Adrian Farrel'; ccamp@ops.ietf.org; gels@rtg.ietf.org Subject: RE: IEEE 802.1 WG liaison letter to the IETF All, In 66th IETF meeting, there is an intention to send a liaison letter to IEEE regarding what control plane could control/manage in Ethernet data plane.=20 This liaison from IEEE clearly states that IEEE has not examined MAC address encapsulation in conjunction with VLAN tagging, thus this is not accepted now. It also clearly states that using two VLAN tags simultaneously is not allowed. Hence, now, standard Ethernet data plane bridge/switch based on MAC or VLAN only.=20 Do we still need a liaison to IEEE? Regards, Lucy =20 -----Original Message----- From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 9:05 AM To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: Fw: IEEE 802.1 WG liaison letter to the IETF Hi, Those of you working on GELS stuff may find material in this liaison (which will inevitably also get posted on the IETF site). Adrian ----- Original Message ----- From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com> To: "IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>; <iab@ietf.org> Cc: <l2vpn@ietf.org>; <ccamp-chairs@tools.ietf.org>; "Tony Jeffree"=20 <tony@jeffree.co.uk> Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 2:55 PM Subject: IEEE 802.1 WG liaison letter to the IETF The IEEE 802.1 Working Group approved the following liaison letter to the IETF, containing clarifications in response to several queries related to the use of IEEE 802.1Q VLAN tags. http://www.ieee802.org/1/files/public/docs2006/liaison-contrib-to-ietf-m ef-dsl-forum-0706.pdf Please distribute this letter to the interested Working Groups that are not included in the distribution list. Dan (wearing the hat of IEEE 802.1 WG liaison to the IETF) _______________________________________________ gels mailing list gels@rtg.ietf.org https://rtg.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gels Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 15:45:52 +0000 Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 10:45:32 -0500 From: Lucy Yong <lucyyong@huawei.com> Subject: RE: IEEE 802.1 WG liaison letter to the IETF To: 'Adrian Farrel' <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, ccamp@ops.ietf.org, gels@rtg.ietf.org Message-id: <001401c6d1cb$7cccca40$a5087c0a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Thread-index: AcbRvleUT//9kWH6RDSiyChwOn4NKgACDbpA All, In 66th IETF meeting, there is an intention to send a liaison letter to IEEE regarding what control plane could control/manage in Ethernet data plane. This liaison from IEEE clearly states that IEEE has not examined MAC address encapsulation in conjunction with VLAN tagging, thus this is not accepted now. It also clearly states that using two VLAN tags simultaneously is not allowed. Hence, now, standard Ethernet data plane bridge/switch based on MAC or VLAN only. Do we still need a liaison to IEEE? Regards, Lucy -----Original Message----- From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 9:05 AM To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: Fw: IEEE 802.1 WG liaison letter to the IETF Hi, Those of you working on GELS stuff may find material in this liaison (which will inevitably also get posted on the IETF site). Adrian ----- Original Message ----- From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com> To: "IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>; <iab@ietf.org> Cc: <l2vpn@ietf.org>; <ccamp-chairs@tools.ietf.org>; "Tony Jeffree" <tony@jeffree.co.uk> Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 2:55 PM Subject: IEEE 802.1 WG liaison letter to the IETF The IEEE 802.1 Working Group approved the following liaison letter to the IETF, containing clarifications in response to several queries related to the use of IEEE 802.1Q VLAN tags. http://www.ieee802.org/1/files/public/docs2006/liaison-contrib-to-ietf-m ef-dsl-forum-0706.pdf Please distribute this letter to the interested Working Groups that are not included in the distribution list. Dan (wearing the hat of IEEE 802.1 WG liaison to the IETF) Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 15:40:35 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: IEEE 802.1 WG liaison letter to the IETF Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 18:36:46 +0200 Message-ID: <D3C85156A12AAB4DB23F598007E9826D228BE9@dove.seabridge.co.il> Thread-Topic: IEEE 802.1 WG liaison letter to the IETF Thread-Index: AcbRxiolXU2gPEG8TdC5GktVFBdvxQACbTSw From: "Nurit Sprecher" <nurit.sprecher@SeabridgeNetworks.com> To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Cc: "Nurit Sprecher" <nurit.sprecher@SeabridgeNetworks.com>, <Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be> Hi, Please note that according to the liaison from the IEEE, currently the only standard behavior is the 12-bit S-VID translation.=20 That means that we can go on with the work done on the 12-bits Ethernet label encoding technique. We have the certification. Regards, Nurit. -----Original Message----- From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 16:05 To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: Fw: IEEE 802.1 WG liaison letter to the IETF Hi, Those of you working on GELS stuff may find material in this liaison (which will inevitably also get posted on the IETF site). Adrian ----- Original Message ----- From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com> To: "IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>; <iab@ietf.org> Cc: <l2vpn@ietf.org>; <ccamp-chairs@tools.ietf.org>; "Tony Jeffree"=20 <tony@jeffree.co.uk> Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 2:55 PM Subject: IEEE 802.1 WG liaison letter to the IETF The IEEE 802.1 Working Group approved the following liaison letter to the IETF, containing clarifications in response to several queries related to the use of IEEE 802.1Q VLAN tags. http://www.ieee802.org/1/files/public/docs2006/liaison-contrib-to-ietf-m ef-dsl-forum-0706.pdf Please distribute this letter to the interested Working Groups that are not included in the distribution list. Dan (wearing the hat of IEEE 802.1 WG liaison to the IETF) Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 14:06:52 +0000 Message-ID: <009401c6d1bd$9cbf88a0$08849ed9@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> To: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Subject: Fw: IEEE 802.1 WG liaison letter to the IETF Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 15:04:31 +0100 Organization: Old Dog Consulting MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, Those of you working on GELS stuff may find material in this liaison (which will inevitably also get posted on the IETF site). Adrian ----- Original Message ----- From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com> To: "IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>; <iab@ietf.org> Cc: <l2vpn@ietf.org>; <ccamp-chairs@tools.ietf.org>; "Tony Jeffree" <tony@jeffree.co.uk> Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 2:55 PM Subject: IEEE 802.1 WG liaison letter to the IETF The IEEE 802.1 Working Group approved the following liaison letter to the IETF, containing clarifications in response to several queries related to the use of IEEE 802.1Q VLAN tags. http://www.ieee802.org/1/files/public/docs2006/liaison-contrib-to-ietf-m ef-dsl-forum-0706.pdf Please distribute this letter to the interested Working Groups that are not included in the distribution list. Dan (wearing the hat of IEEE 802.1 WG liaison to the IETF) Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 13:59:40 +0000 Message-ID: <007d01c6d1bc$90e659b0$08849ed9@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> To: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Cc: "Ross Callon" <rcallon@juniper.net> Subject: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-15.txt submitted Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 14:57:26 +0100 Organization: Old Dog Consulting MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, I have updated the GMPLS LSR MIB after IESG review and submitted it. The changes are as follows. Thanks, Adrian === Lars Eggert - Comment > Section 1., paragraph 2: >> Comments should be made directly to the CCAMP mailing list at >> ccamp@ops.ietf.org. > > Remove. Done >Section 1.1., paragraph 2: >> LSRs may be migrated to be modeled and managed using the MIB modules >> in this document in order to migrate the LSRs to GMPLS support, or to >> take advandtage of additional MIB objects defined in these MIB > > Nit: s/advandtage/advantage/ Done >Section 4.2., paragraph 10: >> - Optionally specifying segment traffic parameters in the >> MPLS-LSR-STD-MIB module [RCF3813]. > > Nit: s/[RCF3813]./[RFC3813]./ Done >Section 6., paragraph 10: >> -- RowPointer MUST point to the first accsesible column. > > Nit: s/accsesible/accessible/ Done >Section 7., paragraph 55: >Section 7., paragraph 57: >Section 7., paragraph 72: >Section 7., paragraph 74: >> "The only valid value for unidrectional LSPs is forward(1)." > > Nit: s/unidrectional/unidirectional/ Done >Section 9., paragraph 7: >> if the network itself is secure (for example by using IPSec), even > > Nit: s/IPSec),/IPsec),/ Done >Section 10., paragraph 0: >> 10. Acknowledgments > > Nit: Typically after IANA considerations. No change made. >Section 10., paragraph 2: >> This document extends [RFC3813]. > > "Extends" as in "updates?" If so, must reflect in > headers/abstract/intro. Text changed to "extends the MIB tables in [RFC3813]" >Section 11., paragraph 3: >> New assignments can only be made via a Standards Action as specified >> in >> [RFC2434]. > > Missing Reference: 'RFC2434' is mentioned on line 1867, but not > defined Added === Dan Romascanu - Comment >> DESCRIPTION >> "Initial version issued as part of RFC XXX." >> ::= { mplsStdMIB XXX } >>-- RFC Editor. Please replace XXX above with the correct RFC number and >>-- remove this note. >> >>-- RFC Editor. Please replace YYY above with the OID assigned by IANA >>-- and remove this note > >The intention is I believe: > > ::= { mplsStdMIB YYY } Done >Also: > >> DESCRIPTION >> "Initial version issued as part of RFC XXX." >> ::= { mplsStdMIB XXX } >>-- RFC Editor. Please replace XXX above with the correct RFC number and >>-- remove this note. >> >>-- RFC Editor. Please replace ZZZ above with the OID assigned by IANA >>-- and remove this note > >should rather be: > > ::= { mplsStdMIB ZZZ } Done === IANA - Comment Text updated to reflect IANA's action Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 13:20:23 +0000 Message-ID: <006801c6d1b7$1dd0ee90$08849ed9@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> To: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Cc: "Ross Callon" <rcallon@juniper.net> Subject: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-tc-mib-11.txt submitted Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 14:18:49 +0100 Organization: Old Dog Consulting MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, I have just submitted a new revision of the GMPLS TC MIB updated after IESG review. The changes are as follows. Thanks, Adrian === Lars Eggert - Comment >Section 1., paragraph 3: >> Comments should be made directly to the CCAMP mailing list at >> ccamp@ops.ietf.org. > > Nit: Remove. Done >Section 3., paragraph 23: >> For manually >> configured bidirecitonal LSPs, an arbitrary decision must be > > Nit: s/bidirecitonal/bidirectional/ Done >Section 5., paragraph 3: >> New assignments can only be made via a Standards Action as specified >> in >> [RFC2434]. > > Nit: Missing Reference: 'RFC2434' is mentioned on line 274, but not > defined Added === IANA - Comment Text updated to reflect IANA's action === Dan Romascanu - Comment >> -- This MIB module is contained in the OID sub-tree >> -- rooted at mplsStdMIB. >> "Initial version published as part of RFC XXX." >> ::= { mplsStdMIB XXX } >> >>-- RFC Editor. Please replace XXX above with the correct RFC number and >>-- remove this note. >> >>-- RFC Editor. Please replace YYY above with the OID assigned by IANA >>-- and remove this note > >should be: > > ::= { mplsStdMIB YYY } Done Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 13:07:19 +0000 Message-ID: <004d01c6d1b4$f77cfd80$08849ed9@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> To: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>, "Ross Callon" <rcallon@juniper.net> Subject: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-te-mib-16.txt submitted Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 14:02:53 +0100 Organization: Old Dog Consulting MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, I have submitted this I-D updated after IESG review. The changes are as follows. Thanks, Adrian **************** draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-te-mib-15 === Lars Eggert - Comment >Section 1.1., paragraph 2: >> LSRs may be migrated to model and manage their TE LSPs using the MIB >> modules in this document in order to migrate the LSRs to GMPLS >> support, or to take advandtage of additional MIB objects defined in > > Nit: s/advandtage/advantage/ Done >Section 8., paragraph 185: >> If the value of >> gmplsTunnelErrorLastErrorType is protocol (2) the error should >> be interpreted in the context of the signling protocol > > Nit: s/signling/signaling/ Done >Section 8., paragraph 198: >> The notification rate applies to the sum >> of all notificaitons in the MPLS-TE-STD-MIB and > > Nit: s/notificaitons/notifications/ Done >Section 9., paragraph 7: >> if the network itself is secure (for example by using IPSec), even > > Nit: s/IPSec),/IPsec),/ Done >Section 12.1., paragraph 22: >> [GMPLSTCMIB] Nadeau, T. and A. Farrel, "Definitions of Textual >> Conventions for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) >> Management", draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-tc-mib, work in >> progress. > > Nit: 'GMPLSTCMIB' is defined on line 2850, but not referenced Removed === Russ Housley - Discuss > I don't understand gmplsTunnelLinkProtection. I gather it is > described in RFC3471. However it seems like this ought to be > discussed in the security considerations. Explanation in email to Russ resulted in this response. No editorial action taken. >I had a DISCUSS based on this comment. Thank for the explanation. I've >cleared the DISCUSS. > > Russ > > At 12:34 PM 8/29/2006, Adrian Farrel wrote: >>>1. I don't understand the gmplsTunnelLinkProtection whose function is >>>described in RFC3471. Since this document describes the MIB to >>>configure the field it probably shouldn't be an issue for this document. >>>However it would be good to know if the authors considered any >>>additional security considerations associated with this variable. >> >>"Protection" here refers to the establishment of a secondary LSP that can >>be used to carry the traffic in the event of the failure of the primary >>LSP. It is not related to the Security use of the same term. >> >>For more on GMPLS protection terminology you can read RFC4327. === Dan Romascanu - Discuss > ietf-ccamp-gmpls-te-mib-15.txt is requesting assignment of a TC module > under > transmission. That seems weird. By convention, transmission assignments > generally > correspond to ifType values, which would result in a "Relationship to the > Interfaces > MIB" section of the document. If they don't define a new ifType value, I > don't see > why it should be under transmission. If, on the other hand, this is > intended to be the > MIB for ifType = mpls (166), then it should have a "Relationship to the > Interfaces > MIB" section. I think it would be better to put this under the mib-2 tree > or under the > mplsStdMIB tree After discussion, we determine that the module in question is IANA-GMPLS-TC-MIB. We agreed that this module should be under the mib-2 tree. The document has been updated accordingly. === Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 23:17:37 +0000 Message-ID: <0fd801c6d141$3bf4dba0$89849ed9@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> To: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Subject: New WG I-Ds Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 00:14:00 +0100 Organization: Old Dog Consulting MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, I asked about... > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bernstein-ccamp-gmpls-vcat-lcas-04.txt > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-03.txt > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ali-ccamp-mpls-graceful-shutdown-04.txt draft-bernstein-ccamp-gmpls-vcat-lcas-04.txt generated some constructive comments that the authors can factor into the next revision. There appears to be good consensus for this draft. Authors, please submit draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-vcat-lcas-00.txt with no changes except the name and the date. You must wait for the -01 revision to address the comments that you have received. draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-03.txt generated a huge amount of discussion. While there was a lot of support, there were also quite a lot of concerns raised, and that means I do not see consensus at the moment. However, I think I can see a way forward here, but I need to send a summary of the debate to the list to see if we can reach some consensus. Authors, you must wait before doing anything with this I-D. draft-ali-ccamp-mpls-graceful-shutdown-04.txt received some comments that will need to be addressed. Most of these can be left to the next revision, but one change must be made now, the I-D must go onto the Informational track. Authors, please submit draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-graceful-shutdown-00.txt changing only the name, date, and intended status of the draft. You must wait for the -01 revision to address the comments you have received. Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 14:52:03 +0000 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ccamp-automesh-02.txt Message-Id: <E1GKcFV-0008Nr-Ft@stiedprstage1.ietf.org> Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 10:50:01 -0400 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Common Control and Measurement Plane Working Group of the IETF. Title : Routing extensions for discovery of Multiprotocol (MPLS) Label Switch Router (LSR) Traffic Engineering (TE) mesh membership Author(s) : J. Vasseur, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-ccamp-automesh-02.txt Pages : 15 Date : 2006-9-5 The set up of a full mesh of Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Switched Paths (LSP) among a set of Label Switch Routers (LSR) is common deployment scenario of MPLS Traffic Engineering either for bandwidth optimization, bandwidth guarantees or fast rerouting with MPLS Fast Reroute. Such deployment may require the configuration of potentially a large number of TE LSPs (on the order of the square of the number LSRs). This document specifies IGP routing extensions for ISIS and OSPF so as to provide an automatic discovery of the set of LSRs members of a mesh in order to automate the creation of such mesh. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-automesh-02.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-ccamp-automesh-02.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-automesh-02.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2006-9-5021218.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-automesh-02.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-ccamp-automesh-02.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2006-9-5021218.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Sun, 03 Sep 2006 18:01:07 +0000 To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-pd-path-comp-03.txt MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <OF5E1679AB.D554F401-ONC12571DD.0052CFB9-C12571DE.0062C80B@netfr.alcatel.fr> From: Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2006 19:59:00 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" question about this doc - section 4 (where the real story starts) "If the loose next-hop is not present in the TED, the following conditions MUST be checked: - If the IP address of the next hop boundary LSR is outside of the current domain, - If the domain is PSC (Packet Switch Capable) and uses in-band control channel If the two conditions above are satisfied then the boundary LSR SHOULD check if the next-hop has IP reachability (via IGP or BGP)." what if one of these condition doesn't hold (?) in the following case X --- [ASBR1 -...- ABR1 -...- ABR2 -...- ASBR2] -- [ASBR3 --..-- ASBR4] ASBR1 receives ASBR4 [loose], the IP address of the so called "next hop boundary LSR" is inside the domain if we refer to the AS but within domain if referring to the Area => the draft says "current" domain ... what does it mean ? ABR1 is locally known to ASBR1, ASBR4 (loose next hop) is outside domain ... does that generate any failure ? i don't think so if authors/others could clarify ? ps: on the structure of this doc - if section 3 could concentrate on working assumptions and put examples (and other tutorial material) in appendix this would be helpful in facilitating reading -d. Internet-Drafts@ietf.org 30/08/2006 21:50 Please respond to internet-drafts To: i-d-announce@ietf.org cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-pd-path-comp-03.txt A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Common Control and Measurement Plane Working Group of the IETF. Title : A Per-domain path computation method for establishing Inter-domain Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Author(s) : J. Vasseur, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-pd-path-comp-03.txt Pages : 21 Date : 2006-8-30 This document specifies a per-domain path computation technique for establishing inter-domain Traffic Engineering (TE) Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs). In this document a domain refers to a collection of network elements within a common sphere of address management or path computational responsibility such as IGP areas and Autonomous Systems. Per-domain computation applies where the full path of an inter-domain TE LSP cannot be or is not determined at the ingress node of the TE LSP, and is not signaled across domain boundaries. This is most likely to arise owing to TE visibility limitations. The signaling message indicates the destination and nodes up to the next domain boundary. It may also indicate further domain boundaries or domain identifiers. The path through each domain, possibly including the choice of exit point from the domain, must be determined within the domain. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-pd-path-comp-03.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-pd-path-comp-03.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-pd-path-comp-03.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. ftp://anonymous@ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-pd-path-comp-03.txt _______________________________________________ I-D-Announce mailing list I-D-Announce@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 13:30:55 +0000 Message-ID: <0ae101c6ce93$8e36fac0$89849ed9@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> To: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Cc: "'Jean Philippe Vasseur'" <jvasseur@cisco.com>, "Ross Callon" <rcallon@juniper.net> Subject: Routing Directorate comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-automesh-01 Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 14:25:29 +0100 Organization: Old Dog Consulting MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi, We held an additional last call for this draft in the IGP working groups and received some further comments that JP has just addressed in a new revision. We have also received some comments from a review in the Routing Directorate that I am précising below. JP, authors: please look through these and let us know your proposals for dealing with them. Thanks, Adrian === 1) The Tail-end name field facilitates LSP identification. Is this a new form of LSP identification? If it is not new, then there should be a reference to RFC3209 and a statement of which RFC3209 fields are mapped to this IGP field. If it is not new then there is a significant concern that a new identification is being introduced when it is not needed. 2) The document mentions that the number of mesh groups is limited but potentially (depending on encoding) provides for binary encoding for 2^32-1 groups (although this might be constrained by OSPF's limit of a TLV size to 2^16 bytes. The document (and the authors) state that scaling of these extensions is not an issue because only a small number of mesh groups are likely to be in existence in a network, and any one router is unlikely to participate in more than a very few. There are two concerns: a) Whenever we say that something in the Internet is limited, history usually proves us wrong. Indeed, there is already a proposal (draft-leroux-mpls-p2mp-te-autoleaf-01.txt) that uses a similar mechanism for a problem that would have far more groups. b) The I-D does not itself impose any reasonable limits on the number of groups with the potential for a single router (by misconfiguration, design, or malice) advertising a very large number of groups. Thus, it appears that the scaling concerns are not properly addressed in this I-D. 3) The document mentions that "The TE-MESH-GROUP TLV is OPTIONAL and must at most appear once in a OSPF Router Information LSA or ISIS Router Capability TLV." but for addition/removal it mentions "conversely, if the LSR leaves a mesh-group the corresponding entry will be removed from the TE-MESH-GROUP TLV." What are these "entries" referring to - that there is a top-level TE-MESH-GROUP TLV with multiple sub-TLVs (but the document mentions "No sub-TLV is currently defined for the TE-mesh-group TLV") ? AF>> My comment on this is that the definition of the TLVs seems unclear. AF>> From figure 2, it appears that some additional information can be AF>> present in the TLV after the fields listed, and (reading between the AF>> lines) it would appear that this additional information is a series of AF>> repeats of the set of fields to define multiple mesh groups. AF>> This could usefully be clarified considerably. AF>> AF>> But it is now unclear to me whether a single router can be a member AF>> of IPv4 an IPv6 mesh groups. It would seem that these cannot be AF>> mixed within a single TLV, and multiple TLVs (one IPv4 and one AF>> IPv6) are prohibited. 4) Small terminology issue in section 5.1 it says: "Note that both operations can be performed in the context of a single refresh." This is not a refresh. It is a trigger/update. A better term for OSPF would be "LSA origination". 5) Please state the applicability to OSPF v2 and or v3. Note that the Router_Cap document covers both v2 and v3 6) The term "fairly static" at the end of section 5.1 is meaningless without some relative context. Presumably this relates to the number times an LSR joins or leaves a mesh group over time. Is it intended to be relative to the IGP refresh period? Please clarify in an objective rather than a subjective way. 7) The security section (section 8) is inadequate and will undoubtedly be rejected by the security ADs. At the very least, the I-D needs a paragraph (i.e. more than one or two lines) explaining why there are no new security considerations. But what would be the impact of adding false mesh groups to a TLV? Is there anything (dangerous) that can be learned about the network by inspecting mesh group TLVs? Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 07:07:11 +0000 Message-ID: <08ee01c6cd94$fe01e9f0$89849ed9@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> To: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Subject: Fw: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-framework-06.txt Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 08:04:53 +0100 Organization: Old Dog Consulting MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi CCAMP, This revision addresses further IESG concerns with the security section. At this stage we believe that the I-D will now pass muster at the IESG and go forward to the RFC Editor. Cheers, Adrian ----- Original Message ----- From: <Internet-Drafts@ietf.org> To: <i-d-announce@ietf.org> Cc: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 8:50 PM Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-framework-06.txt >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the Common Control and Measurement Plane > Working Group of the IETF. > > Title : A Framework for Inter-Domain Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic > Engineering > Author(s) : A. Farrel, et al. > Filename : draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-framework-06.txt > Pages : 21 > Date : 2006-8-31 > > This document provides a framework for establishing and controlling > Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) > Traffic Engineered (TE) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) in multi-domain > networks. > > For the purposes of this document, a domain is considered to be any > collection of network elements within a common sphere of address > management or path computational responsibility. Examples of such > domains include Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) areas and Autonomous > Systems (ASs). > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-framework-06.txt > > To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to > i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of > the message. > You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce > to change your subscription settings. > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the > username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After > logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then > "get draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-framework-06.txt". > > A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in > http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html > or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > > Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. > > Send a message to: > mailserv@ietf.org. > In the body type: > "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-framework-06.txt". > > NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in > MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this > feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" > command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or > a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers > exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with > "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split > up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on > how to manipulate these messages. > > Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader > implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the > Internet-Draft. >
- Comments on draft-li-ccamp-multinodes-gr-proc-00.… Zafar Ali (zali)
- RE: Comments on draft-li-ccamp-multinodes-gr-proc… Olufemi Komolafe
- RE: Comments on draft-li-ccamp-multinodes-gr-proc… jiang.weilian
- Re: Comments on draft-li-ccamp-multinodes-gr-proc… Adrian Farrel
- Re: Comments on draft-li-ccamp-multinodes-gr-proc… Dan Li
- Re: Comments on draft-li-ccamp-multinodes-gr-proc… Dimitri.Papadimitriou
- Re: Comments on draft-li-ccamp-multinodes-gr-proc… Dan Li
- Re: Comments on draft-li-ccamp-multinodes-gr-proc… Dimitri.Papadimitriou
- Re: Comments on draft-li-ccamp-multinodes-gr-proc… Adrian Farrel