Re: [mpls-tp] WG LC draft-lm-pwe3-mpls-tp-gal-in-pw-00.txt

Sasha/Greg,

I would certainly agree that the use of the GAL with PWs is wrong....but the reason for that is simply that PWs per se violate the whole purpose of MPLS-TP as a *transparent* transport network, noting that a true transport network must treat all client symbols equally...that is just a fact.

However, given PWs are being carried forward into MPLS-TP then we also have to deal with the issue that CP/MP of a transport network needs to logically OOB wrt to the DP traffic.  The GAL provides this function for the MPLS-TP layer network itself (though it also gets this a wee bit wrong by asking it to play a DP OAM role too,) but what about the PW layer network?

MS PWs for sure are their own/different layer network....so they will need their own access point addressing, OAM, routing, signalling, etc.  I asked some time ago why we were not using RSVP signalling here but T-LDP instead...and I was told that RSVP cannot handle the PW signalling messages (nor the access addressing formats I assume...and we will of course need a new instance of routing that will).

So how is T-LDP being taken OOB wrt to the PW DP?

regards, Neil

Neil Harrison
BT Design

Tel: +44 (0) 1 803 812 545
Email: neil.2.harrison@bt.com<mailto:neil.2.harrison@bt.com>
Web: www.bt.com<http://www.bt.com/>
This email contains BT information, which may be privileged or confidential.
It's meant only for the individual(s) or entity named above. If you're not the intended
recipient, note that disclosing, copying, distributing or using this information
is prohibited. If you've received this email in error, please let me know immediately
on the email address above. Thank you.
We monitor our email system, and may record your emails.
British Telecommunications plc
Registered office: 81 Newgate Street London EC1A 7AJ
Registered in England no: 1800000

From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alexander Vainshtein
Sent: 18 February 2011 07:05
To: Greg Mirsky
Cc: Robert Rennison; mpls@ietf.org; Luca Martini; mpls-tp@ietf.org; Mishael Wexler; lihan@chinamobile.com; pwe3; Rotem@core3.amsl.com; HUANG@core3.amsl.com; Feng F; Cohen
Subject: Re: [PWE3] [mpls-tp] WG LC draft-lm-pwe3-mpls-tp-gal-in-pw-00.txt

Greg, and all,
I concur with Greg.
Using GAL with PWs is highly problematic, and all the related issues (raised during the poll on accepting this draft as a WG item) have not, AFAIK, been resolved.

Regards,
     Sasha

________________________________
From: mpls-tp-bounces@ietf.org [mpls-tp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Greg Mirsky [gregimirsky@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 8:47 AM
To: Luca Martini
Cc: mpls@ietf.org; mpls-tp@ietf.org; lihan@chinamobile.com; pwe3; HUANG Feng F
Subject: [mpls-tp] WG LC draft-lm-pwe3-mpls-tp-gal-in-pw-00.txt
Dear Authors and All,
prior to the meeting in Bejing and acceptance of this proposal as WG document Luca and I agreed that use of GAL with PW VCCV presents a problem.
I was not attending the IETF-79, nor I found discussion of this issue in the minutes. I think that this issue should be specified, explained. In my view, this document updates not only RFC 5586
but RFC 5085 too.

Regards,
Greg

Comment to draft-lm-pwe3-mpls-tp-gal-in-pw-00.txt
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 10:14 AM, Luca Martini <lmartini@cisco.com<mailto:lmartini@cisco.com>> wrote:
Greg,

You are correct , the proposed update does not propose any changes to VCCV.
However the problem with vccv is not as simple as to ask for a new code point from IANA.
Given the good amount of discussion on this point, we should probably have a discussion in Beijing.

Luca

On 10/29/2010 05:07 PM, Greg Mirsky wrote:

Dear Authors,

I think that proposed update of the Section 4.2. RFC 5586 makes it possible

to use GAL on MPLS-TP PW that uses Control Word. I consider it to be

conflict between PW VCCV CC types because use of GAL is not negotiated

through PW VCCV negotiation. To avoid such situation I propose:

   - in Section 5 request IANA to assign new CC Type "MPLS Generic

   Associated Channel Label"

   - assign precedence to new CC Type that affects Section 7 RFC 5085

Regards,

Greg

_______________________________________________

mpls mailing list

mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls