Re: [Mpls-interop] Who will be in Geneva?

Hi Ben and Nurit,

We definitly have to have a f-2-f discussion about TC, I think
there is still some confusion.

> Scalability of TC (or whatever we call it) is basically if you have 1:1
> mapping between TC and LSP. But if you have 1:n mapping TC and many LSPs
> the main concern can be solved. 

TC is 1:1 related to a single LSP, this is how TC is defined
in the Transport environment. A TC can be created either by
stacking or by using the MEG level methodology (also used in
the transport ethernet)

> If you define TC in reasonable areas (e.g. across a domain in a
> multi-domain network) and the TC aggregate multiple LSPs then IMO the
> construction of TC is the cleanest one and works well with OAM and with
> protection.

The TC aggregate is not a TC anymore, it should IMHO be referred
to as a tunnel.

Cheers, Huub.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpls-interop-bounces@ietf.org
> [mailto:mpls-interop-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext Ben
> Niven-Jenkins
> Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 00:17
> To: Adrian Farrel; mpls-interop@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Mpls-interop] Who will be in Geneva?
> 
> Adrian,
> 
> On 27/11/2008 22:27, "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:
>> I ended up with a modest list of MPLS-TP design team folk willing to
>> squander their evenings in Geneva working on drafts. Must be that the
> Swiss
>> night life is too exciting!
> 
> Or that there is no Q.Whisky in SG15 ;-)
> 
>> Lastly, I would like to see if I can understand the issues with the
> OAM
>> techniques proposed. Can we continue to use TTL? Does the idea of
> using
>> nesting for all OAM segments really hold up? Is the OAM cart in danger
> of
>> driving the protection hobbyhorse (pardon my mixed metaphore).
> 
> I'm no OAM expert (I leave that to Tom :-) ) but I am yet to be
> convinced by
> nesting all OAM segments for the reason that it sounds complicated and
> that
> means to me that it will be expensive to run and to scale.  It also
> sounds
> like I'd have to have my network constructed in a particular way to be
> able
> to use OAM which means even in the best run network I will at some point
> not
> be able to run OAM when I need it (and the customer is screaming at me)
> because the network wasn't constructed correctly (either by design or
> actual
> configuration != design).
> 
> Ben
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mpls-interop mailing list
> Mpls-interop@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-interop
> _______________________________________________
> Mpls-interop mailing list
> Mpls-interop@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-interop
> 

-- 
================================================================
                   http://www.van-helvoort.eu/
================================================================
Always remember that you are unique...just like everyone else...

_______________________________________________
Mpls-interop mailing list
Mpls-interop@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-interop