[mpls-tp] Comments on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers-01

Mach Chen <mach@huawei.com> Tue, 22 June 2010 03:48 UTC

Return-Path: <mach@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: mpls-tp@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls-tp@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FD0D3A67FC for <mpls-tp@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Jun 2010 20:48:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.02
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.02 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.526, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001]
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 DK7cDAo+P0Q8 for <mpls-tp@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Jun 2010 20:48:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from szxga04-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.67]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED9A13A659B for <mpls-tp@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Jun 2010 20:48:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga04-in [172.24.2.12]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0L4E00CISD6U6D@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for mpls-tp@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jun 2010 11:47:18 +0800 (CST)
Received: from m55527c ([10.110.98.169]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0L4E00A35D6TM9@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for mpls-tp@ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jun 2010 11:47:18 +0800 (CST)
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 11:47:17 +0800
From: Mach Chen <mach@huawei.com>
To: mpls-tp@ietf.org
Message-id: <183D297F2403463FAE3475F1673BF925@m55527c>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8064.206
X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8064.206
Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=gb2312; reply-type=original
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Importance: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-priority: Normal
Subject: [mpls-tp] Comments on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers-01
X-BeenThere: mpls-tp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: MPLS-TP Mailing list <mpls-tp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp>, <mailto:mpls-tp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls-tp>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls-tp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-tp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp>, <mailto:mpls-tp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 03:48:54 -0000

Hi authors,

Here are some comments:

1. In the draft, the Source/Destination Node is defined as a 32-bits ID, but 
for a MPLS/GMPLS TE based LSP, the Tunnel Extended ID, Tunnel end point 
address and Tunnel sender address may be IPv6 addresses, it seems that the 
"mapping to GMPLS signaling" (Section 5.3) can not handle this.

2. In your draft, an LSP is identified by the combination of Src-Global_ID, 
Src-Node_ID, Src-Tunnel_Num, Dst-Global_ID, Dst-Node_ID, Dst-Tunnel_Num, 
LSP_Num, this is fine for unidirectional and co-routed bidirectional LSP, 
but it is not enough for associated bidirectional LSP that is combined with 
two reverse unidirectional LSPs and IMHO two LSP_Nums are required.

Best regards,
Mach