Re: [Mpls-interop] PST.ppt

Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Wed, 03 December 2008 15:55 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 D799D3A680A; Wed, 3 Dec 2008 07:55:53 -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 E16763A680A for <mpls-interop@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Dec 2008 07:55:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.724
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.724 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.125, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 ZPM+3LdKUeis for <mpls-interop@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Dec 2008 07:55:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from av10-2-sn2.hy.skanova.net (av10-2-sn2.hy.skanova.net [81.228.8.182]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C86A3A6893 for <mpls-interop@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Dec 2008 07:55:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by av10-2-sn2.hy.skanova.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id 483E237FF7; Wed, 3 Dec 2008 16:55:46 +0100 (CET)
Received: from smtp4-2-sn2.hy.skanova.net (smtp4-2-sn2.hy.skanova.net [81.228.8.93]) by av10-2-sn2.hy.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A30737EDF; Wed, 3 Dec 2008 16:55:46 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [192.168.0.100] (h133n2fls33o883.telia.com [217.208.62.133]) by smtp4-2-sn2.hy.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41BAF37E4E; Wed, 3 Dec 2008 16:55:45 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <4936ABFC.50703@pi.nu>
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 16:55:40 +0100
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (Windows/20081105)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
References: <43284B5A95E36B4AB4A91EBA4E0FC31E01010A6F@DEMUEXC030.nsn-intra.net> <49367E70.5040900@pi.nu> <F7868E2F4547486A89715B01B2B2CC38@your029b8cecfe> <49368C2E.9090802@pi.nu> <132D3444FA314908B2997D63471534D3@your029b8cecfe> <493692D8.8000808@pi.nu> <70A1E4B3BE2B438AB97890A9C94238CF@your029b8cecfe>
In-Reply-To: <70A1E4B3BE2B438AB97890A9C94238CF@your029b8cecfe>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7
Cc: mpls-interop@ietf.org, "Weingarten, Yaacov \(NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon\)" <yaacov.weingarten@nsn.com>
Subject: Re: [Mpls-interop] PST.ppt
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

Arian,

where is "halfway down the tunnel - between PE1 and PE2 (counting from
left and between PE3 and PE4? I would agree to that, but between PE2 and
PE3 we are "out of the tunnel" - given that I understand what is said
what I can see from the picture. Right?



Adrian Farrel wrote:
> Loa,
> 
> You can protect a tunnel or an end-to-end LSP
> However, halfway down a tunnel, you can only protect the tunnel (because
> you can't see the content)
> 
> A
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Loa Andersson" <loa@pi.nu>
> To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
> Cc: "Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)" <nurit.sprecher@nsn.com>om>;
> <hhelvoort@chello.nl>nl>; "Weingarten, Yaacov (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)"
> <yaacov.weingarten@nsn.com>om>; <mpls-interop@ietf.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 2:08 PM
> Subject: Re: PST.ppt
> 
> 
>> Adrian,
>>
>>
>> Adrian Farrel wrote:
>>>> I don't think that it should any different.
>>>
>>> Good
>>>
>>>> So 2nd PE from the left pops the tunnel label and swaps the inner
>>>> label and then pushes the new tunnel label. Is that what you say?
>>>
>>> Yup. Normal LSR behavior.
>>>
>>>> Same for the 3rd PE?
>>>
>>> Why would this be any different from normal LSR behavior?   :-)
>>
>> I don't look for or hope for any difference ;).
>>
>> Assuming there is a PST from the 3rd to the 4th PE also?
>>
>> What is protected from e.g. 3rd PE to the 4th PE the entire containing
>> tunnel or the each separate contained tunnel?
>>
>> /Loa
>>
>>>
>>> A
>>>
>>>> Adrian Farrel wrote:
>>>>> 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" <loa@pi.nu>
>>>>> To: "Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)" <nurit.sprecher@nsn.com>
>>>>> Cc: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>uk>; <hhelvoort@chello.nl>nl>;
>>>>> "Weingarten, Yaacov (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)"
>>>>> <yaacov.weingarten@nsn.com>om>; <mpls-interop@ietf.org>
>>>>> 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:loa@pi.nu]
>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 14:21
>>>>>>> To: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
>>>>>>> Cc: Adrian Farrel; hhelvoort@chello.nl; Weingarten, Yaacov (NSN -
>>>>>>> IL/Hod
>>>>>>> HaSharon); mpls-interop@ietf.org
>>>>>>> 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:adrian@olddog.co.uk]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 11:20
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To: hhelvoort@chello.nl; Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cc: ext Ben Niven-Jenkins; mpls-interop@ietf.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mpls-interop@ietf.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-interop
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Loa Andersson                         email:
>>>>>> loa.andersson@redback.com
>>>>>> Sr Strategy and Standards Manager            loa@pi.nu
>>>>>> Redback Networks                      phone: +46 8 632 77 14
>>>>>> An Ericsson Company
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Loa Andersson                         email: loa.andersson@redback.com
>>>> Sr Strategy and Standards Manager            loa@pi.nu
>>>> Redback Networks                      phone: +46 8 632 77 14
>>>> An Ericsson Company
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>>
>>
>> Loa Andersson                         email: loa.andersson@redback.com
>> Sr Strategy and Standards Manager            loa@pi.nu
>> Redback Networks                      phone: +46 8 632 77 14
>> An Ericsson Company 
> 
> 


-- 


Loa Andersson                         email: loa.andersson@redback.com
Sr Strategy and Standards Manager            loa@pi.nu
Redback Networks                      phone: +46 8 632 77 14
An Ericsson Company
_______________________________________________
Mpls-interop mailing list
Mpls-interop@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-interop