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

Nurit,

Thanks for the figure. If I understand it correctly I think we need to
updated some terminology.

In my understanding there is only one LSP from the left to the right
node and therefore we are in the SS-PW scenario.

The nodes at the boundary of the two clouds are not swapping any PW
label and therefore they are not S-PE but LSR.

Am I missing something?

Thanks, Italo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpls-interop-bounces@ietf.org 
> [mailto:mpls-interop-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sprecher, 
> Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
> Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 10:37 AM
> To: Adrian Farrel; hhelvoort@chello.nl
> Cc: Weingarten, Yaacov (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon); mpls-interop@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Mpls-interop] Who will be in Geneva?
> 
> 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