Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] Authors and MIB Drs. comments on draft-vkst-mpls-tp-te-mib-00.txt

[Venkatesan Mahalingam <[e-mail]>]

Hi All,

Yes, the mplsTunnelExtTable is meant for Sparse augmenting the mplsTunnelTable. i.e. Entries will exist in the mplsTunnelExtTable only for MPLS_TP tunnels
 that are based on global ID and Node ID and/or ICC-ID.
This mplsTunnelExtTable is similar to gmplsTunnelEntry specified in RFC4802.

We understand that gmplsTunnelTable is also sparse augmented only for gmpls Tunnels. We understand that RFC4802 is not doing any redefinition of the indices.
Similarly, mplsTunnelExtTable is not meant for redefining the indices.
mplsTunnelExtTable uses the same indices as mplsTunnelTable. Only the meaning of them is interpreted based on mpls-tp-identifier.
Is it possible to explain the reason behind your question "would the indexes redefined for TP be acceptable" ?

Cheers,
Venkat.
________________________________________
From: Joan Cucchiara [[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 2:52 AM
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Thomas D. Nadeau; Venkatesan Mahalingam; Kannan KV Sampath
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Joan Cucchiara
Subject: Authors and MIB Drs.  comments on draft-vkst-mpls-tp-te-mib-00.txt

Authors and MIB Drs.,

This draft is currently being polled to become a WG document in the MPLS WG.
Poll ends on May 18th.

This draft contains a table:  mplsTunnelExtTable which
AUGMENTS the mplsTunnelTable in RFC3812.

The indexes are:
        INDEX {
              mplsTunnelIndex,
               mplsTunnelInstance,
               mplsTunnelIngressLSRId,
               mplsTunnelEgressLSRId
            }

The above indexes seem to be redefined in this draft (quoting from the
DESCRIPTION clause):

         "As per MPLS-TP Identifiers draft,  LSP_ID is

            Src-Global_Node_ID::Src-Tunnel_Num::Dst-Global_Node_ID::
            Dst-Tunnel_Num::LSP_Num for IP operator and

            Src-ICC::Src-Tunnel_Num::Dst-ICC::Dst-Tunnel_Num::LSP_Num
            for ICC operator,

            mplsTunnelTable is reused for forming the LSP_ID as follows,

            Source Tunnel_Num is mapped with mplsTunnelIndex,
            Source node identifier is mapped with
            mplsTunnelIngressLSRId, Destination node identifier is
            mapped with mplsTunnelEgressLSRId LSP_Num is mapped with
            mplsTunnelInstance.

            Source Global identifier/ICC and Destination
            Global identifier/ICC are maintained in the
            mplsNodeConfigTable and mplsNodeConfigLocalNum is used to
            create an entry in mplsTunnelTable."

Additionally,  one now needs to first configure an entry in the
mplsNodeConfigTable in this draft, then
one can create an entry in the mplsTunnelTable (RFC3812).

Adrian Farrel recently posted to MPLS his concerns about this draft also.
He suggested that
the mplsTunnelExtTable in this draft was probably meant to have
sparse-augments relationship to the
mplsTunnelTable.    While I would agree that this is probably the case, even
with a
sparse-augments relationship, would the indexes redefined for TP be
acceptable?   I think not, although,
do see an advantage for having all mpls-based Tunnels in one table.

I am posting to MIB DRs to see if they have suggestions/comments.

Thank you,
 -Joan



----- Original Message -----
From: <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Cc: <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 1:47 PM
Subject: [mpls] poll on draft-vkst-mpls-tp-te-mib-00.txt


>
> Working Group,
>
> this is to start a two week poll on making
>
> draft-vkst-mpls-tp-te-mib-00.txt
>
> an mpls working group document.
>
> If you support the document becoming a working group document
> please respond to this poll with "yes/support"
>
> If you do not support the document becoming a working group
> document please respond to this poll with "no/do not support"
> and at the same time give the technical reasons why you are
> not supporting the document.
>
> If you have technical comments or in any other way want to
> discuss the document, please send these comments to the mpls
> working group mailing list, but with another subject than what
> is on this mail.
>
> The poll ends 2011-05-18.
>
> /Loa
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls


"DISCLAIMER: This message is proprietary to Aricent and is intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. It may contain privileged or confidential information and should not be circulated or used for any purpose other than for what it is intended. If you have received this message in error, please notify the originator immediately. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that you are strictly prohibited from using, copying, altering, or disclosing the contents of this message. Aricent accepts no responsibility for loss or damage arising from the use of the information transmitted by this email including damage from virus."