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

<julien.meuric@orange-ftgroup.com> Tue, 02 December 2008 15:36 UTC

Return-Path: <mpls-interop-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: mpls-interop-archive@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-mpls-interop-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 545193A67AE; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 07:36:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: mpls-interop@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls-interop@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7283F3A67D7 for <mpls-interop@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 07:36:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BdcGossiSZ5I for <mpls-interop@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 07:36:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from p-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com (p-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com [195.101.245.15]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3E813A67AE for <mpls-interop@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 07:36:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from FTRDMEL2.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.193.117.153]) by ftrdsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 2 Dec 2008 16:36:20 +0100
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 16:36:18 +0100
Message-ID: <7DBAFEC6A76F3E42817DF1EBE64CB026060DE8D7@ftrdmel2>
In-Reply-To: <79F2E2FA3D134DCA85251132D1311BA3@your029b8cecfe>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Mpls-interop] Who will be in Geneva?
Thread-index: AclUkgZSmNJQ617xT3qR0IaG4Iww+wAAFJlA
References: <A79C9B7D57B940FF802C8395F15E232E@your029b8cecfe> <C55A12D2.EB1D%benjamin.niven-jenkins@bt.com><43284B5A95E36B4AB4A91EBA4E0FC31EFE09F2@DEMUEXC030.nsn-intra.net><4934FCC2.7030305@chello.nl><51661468CBD1354294533DA79E85955A0148B763@XCH-SW-5V2.sw.nos.boeing.com> <79F2E2FA3D134DCA85251132D1311BA3@your029b8cecfe>
From: <julien.meuric@orange-ftgroup.com>
To: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, <John.E.Drake2@boeing.com>, <hhelvoort@chello.nl>, <nurit.sprecher@nsn.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Dec 2008 15:36:20.0564 (UTC) FILETIME=[B97C8140:01C95493]
Cc: mpls-interop@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Mpls-interop] Who will be in Geneva?
X-BeenThere: mpls-interop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF MPLS Interoperability Design Team <mpls-interop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-interop>, <mailto:mpls-interop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/mpls-interop>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls-interop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-interop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-interop>, <mailto:mpls-interop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: mpls-interop-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: mpls-interop-bounces@ietf.org

Hello.

And a node terminating a PST would be a PSTN? ;-)

All the same, it seems much more intuitive than TC for an IETF reader.

Julien


-----Original Message-----
From: mpls-interop-bounces@ietf.org
[mailto:mpls-interop-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel

The term that is crystallizing is "path segment tunnel" (PST)

Does that do the job?

Adrian

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Drake, John E" <John.E.Drake2@boeing.com>

> If we say that the OAM channel is associated with the containing LSP,
> then we could have a tandem connection as currently defined (1:1 with
an
> LSP) while having the benefits of 1 OAM channel for N contained LSPs.
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Huub van Helvoort [mailto:hhelvoort@chello.nl]
>>
>>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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
_______________________________________________
Mpls-interop mailing list
Mpls-interop@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-interop