Re: [Mpls-interop] PST.ppt

Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Wed, 03 December 2008 13:40 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 431673A68D7; Wed, 3 Dec 2008 05:40:15 -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 EC34E3A69FE for <mpls-interop@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Dec 2008 05:40:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.549
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, 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 YtmvefuAYins for <mpls-interop@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Dec 2008 05:40:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from neo.viciousnest.net (neo.viciousnest.net [192.71.80.124]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFA1B3A68D7 for <mpls-interop@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Dec 2008 05:40:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by neo.viciousnest.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDF861B459; Wed, 3 Dec 2008 14:40:06 +0100 (CET)
Received: from neo.viciousnest.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (neo [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 02304-10; Wed, 3 Dec 2008 14:40:04 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [192.36.157.201] (dhcp201.verkstad.net [192.36.157.201]) by neo.viciousnest.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CC581B457; Wed, 3 Dec 2008 14:40:04 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <49368C2E.9090802@pi.nu>
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 14:39:58 +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>
In-Reply-To: <F7868E2F4547486A89715B01B2B2CC38@your029b8cecfe>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at viciousnest.net
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

Adrian,

I don't think that it should any different.

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?

Same for the 3rd PE?

/Loa



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