Re: [Mpls-interop] PST.ppt

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

Loa,

Why would this be any different from normal LSR behavior?

P1 sees only the PST labels
PEs pop the PST label and see the e2e label and process it as normal.

Cheers,
Adrian
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Loa Andersson" <[e-mail]>
To: "Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)" <[e-mail]>
Cc: "Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>uk>; <[e-mail]>nl>; 
"Weingarten, Yaacov (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)" <[e-mail]>om>; 
<[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 12:41 PM
Subject: Re: PST.ppt


> Nurit,
>
> ok fine, however ...
>
> In your figure will the  2nd and 3rd PEs label swap the label on
> E2E tunnels LSP? Or is the same label showing up at the  4th PE?
>
> /Loa
>
> Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon) wrote:
>> Oops......my mistake.......here is the updated figure......
>>
>> The intention was to refer to a SS-PW. Accidentally I referred to T-PE
>> and S-PE.
>>
>> We can provide also another figure for the MS-PW case.
>>
>> Note also that the figure is adapted with the new term - PST
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ext Loa Andersson [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 14:21
>> To: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
>> Cc: Adrian Farrel; [e-mail]; Weingarten, Yaacov (NSN - IL/Hod
>> HaSharon); [e-mail]
>> Subject: PST question: Was (Re: [Mpls-interop] Who will be in Geneva?)
>>
>>
>>
>> Renaming the thread - a little late but anyway ...
>>
>>
>>
>> at risk asking the obvious, since I'm still reading through the
>>
>> thread?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Nurit,
>>
>>
>>
>> In your figure will the S-PEs label swap the label on
>>
>> E2E tunnels LSP? Or is the same label showing up at the
>>
>> second T-PE?
>>
>>
>>
>> /Loa
>>
>>
>>
>> Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon) wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>
>>> I agree that we need to find a better name......
>>
>>> What about the figure in the second slide of the attached?
>>
>>> If multiple LSPs transmit via the same physical path in the first
>> domain
>>
>>> and have the same constraints, why cannot we aggregate them and run
>> OAM
>>
>>> per the aggregated in the first domain?
>>
>>> Best regards,
>>
>>> Nurit
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>
>>> From: ext Adrian Farrel [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 11:20
>>
>>> To: [e-mail]; Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
>>
>>> Cc: ext Ben Niven-Jenkins; [e-mail]
>>
>>> Subject: Re: [Mpls-interop] Who will be in Geneva?
>>
>>
>>> Hi Huub.
>>
>>
>>>> The TC aggregate is not a TC anymore, it should IMHO be referred
>>
>>>> to as a tunnel.
>>
>>
>>> Yes!
>>
>>
>>> Which is not to say that it is not a useful construct for reducing OAM
>>
>>
>>> overhead.
>>
>>
>>> I think (OK, I know) that I suggested we avoid using the TC language
>> as
>>
>>> I
>>
>>> thought we would find it unhelpful. Perhaps when we meet to go through
>>
>>> this,
>>
>>> we can draw pictures and work out the language later?
>>
>>
>>> A
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>> Mpls-interop mailing list
>>
>>> [e-mail]
>>
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-interop
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> -- 
>
>
> Loa Andersson                         email: [e-mail]
> Sr Strategy and Standards Manager            [e-mail]
> Redback Networks                      phone: [phone]
> An Ericsson Company 


_______________________________________________
Mpls-interop mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-interop