Re: [mpls-tp] MPLS-TP tunnel and PW establishment over multiple different operators

venkatesan mahalingam <venkatflex@gmail.com> Tue, 29 June 2010 19:08 UTC

Return-Path: <venkatflex@gmail.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 AADC83A6929 for <mpls-tp@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 12:08:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.948
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.948 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.650, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=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 Y9zUr4u0EzRJ for <mpls-tp@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 12:08:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pz0-f44.google.com (mail-pz0-f44.google.com [209.85.210.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 409773A686D for <mpls-tp@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 12:08:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pzk36 with SMTP id 36so1295659pzk.31 for <mpls-tp@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 12:08:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=9VDDU05z/M4F1wlCLfjvwa66an/t4pBN3rIO04Ec/pA=; b=e9egcVb4kAPW2w1Gr2ILhJTRlJUibxBNkaxj1Wfmi/RW5kuS/1CoKpKezsesYREIJt HNt65zQNw3eNhR/btOK8kxzAOY89iGkyL+40sWYyldLPRPJs//JMZO8i+l9Q3Lw9ncPf JXHe0e0klNCos113VGgPUWvtp3WkIc/Gg01ek=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=Z+S2zXDNhBMUl2eK97zUmkNB+PsQfXuCaW6VD6lGKqf7gDzU3g0/69c9blZrExqm1o ZDwxXfV2NYdGRRmdxg+23apMOUNFop5LxTwSwWYKkstgubl0argAPnTMvRWXSK8r50UD JqBXi5Xww7PJBJeJr7PAj5wSKbHXkDqk/omVU=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.142.207.13 with SMTP id e13mr8694927wfg.21.1277838508381; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 12:08:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.143.167.14 with HTTP; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 12:08:28 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTik-HZHcVP8ZZR-kj3bmbHKDsTzlPUdlzvnDepPu@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTik-HZHcVP8ZZR-kj3bmbHKDsTzlPUdlzvnDepPu@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 00:38:28 +0530
Message-ID: <AANLkTinjtSuXJoJUKFLPULQkOiqmKtqfnWaa5_CFdgK6@mail.gmail.com>
From: venkatesan mahalingam <venkatflex@gmail.com>
To: mpls-tp@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd605ae5f5592048a2ff62f
Subject: Re: [mpls-tp] MPLS-TP tunnel and PW establishment over multiple different operators
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, 29 Jun 2010 19:08:21 -0000

Hi,
Can we establish a LSP/PW between MPLS-TP operators with different
identifiers (ICC and Global_ID)?

for example,

Operator1
-------------------Operator2--------------------Operator3---------------------------Operator-4
(ICC)                             (ICC)
(Global_ID)                           (Global_ID)

Can single LSP/PW be traversed between Operator1 and Operator-4?
If the answer is NO, do we need to maintain two LSPs/PWs, one between
Operator1 and Operator2 and
another one between Operator3 and Operator4 and LSP/PW stitching with these
two LSPs/PWs for communication across operators?


Thanks,
Venkat.

On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 11:13 PM, venkatesan mahalingam <
venkatflex@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Please clarify whether the below operations are valid for MPLS-TP
> deployment.
>
> For example,
> *Scenario-1:*
> Operator1 -------------------Operator2--------------------Operator3
>  (ICC - IP capable)    (ICC- IP capable)        (ICC IP incapable)
>
>  Can single LSP/PW be established over ICC based operators in an IP and
> Non-IP environments?
>  **
> *Scenario-2:*
> Operator1
> -------------------Operator2--------------------Operator3----------------------Operator-4
>  (ICC - IP capable)    (ICC- IP capable)        (ICC IP
> incapable)               (ICC IP incapable)
>
> Can single LSP/PW be established between Operator1 and Opearator-4?
> If the answer is NO, do we need to maintain two LSPs/PWs, one between
> Operator1 and Operator2 and
> another one between Operator3 and Operator4 and LSP/PW stitching with these
> two LSPs/PWs?
>
>  *Scenario-3:*
> Operator1
> ---------------------------Operator2--------------------------------Operator3
> (Global_ID - IP capable)    (Global_ID - IP capable)        (Global_ID IP
> incapable)
>
>  Can single LSP/PW be established over Global_ID based operators in an IP
> and Non-IP environments?
>  **
> *Scenario-4:*
> Operator1
> -----------------------------Operator2------------------------Operator3------------------------------Operator-4
>  (Global_ID - IP capable)    (Global_ID- IP capable)        (Global_ID IP
> incapable)       (Global_ID IP incapable)
>
> Can single LSP/PW be established between Operator1 and Opearator-4?
> If the answer is NO, do we need to maintain two LSPs/PWs, one between
> Operator1 and Operator2 and
> another one between Operator3 and Operator4 and LSP/PW stitching with these
> two LSPs/PWs?
>
> *Scenario-5:*
>  Operator1
> --------------------------------Operator2--------------------Operator3
>  (Global_ID- IP capable)         (ICC- IP capable)        (Global_ID IP
> capable)
>
>  Can single LSP/PW be established over different operators in an IP
> environments?
>  **
>  *Scenario-6:*
>  Operator1
> -----------------------------Operator2--------------------Operator3
>  (ICC- IP incapable)         (Global- IP incapable)        (ICC IP
> incapable)
>
>  Can single LSP/PW be established over different operators in an Non-IP
> environments?
>
> *Scenario-7:*
> Operator1
> -------------------Operator2--------------------Operator3---------------------------Operator-4
>  (ICC - IP capable)    (ICC- IP capable)        (Global_ID IP
> capable)            (Global_ID IP capable)
>
> Can single LSP/PW be established between Operator1 and Opearator-4?
> If the answer is NO, do we need to maintain two LSPs/PWs, one between
> Operator1 and Operator2 and
> another one between Operator3 and Operator4 and LSP/PW stitching with these
> two LSPs/PWs?
>
>  *Scenario-8:*
> Operator1
> -------------------Operator2--------------------Operator3---------------------------Operator-4
>  (ICC - IP capable)    (ICC- IP capable)        (Global_ID IP
> incapable)          (Global_ID IP incapable)
>
> Can single LSP/PW be established between Operator1 and Opearator-4?
> If the answer is NO, do we need to maintain two LSPs/PWs, one between
> Operator1 and Operator2 and
> another one between Operator3 and Operator4 and LSP/PW stitching with these
> two LSPs/PWs?
>
>  *Scenario-9:*
> Operator1
> -------------------Operator2-----------------------------Operator3---------------------------Operator-4
>  (ICC - IP capable)    (Global_ID- IP capable)        (ICC IP
> incapable)          (Global_ID IP incapable)
>
> Can single LSP/PW be established between Operator1 and Opearator-4?
> If the answer is NO, do we need to maintain two LSPs/PWs, one between
> Operator1 and Operator2 and
> another one between Operator3 and Operator4 and LSP/PW stitching with these
> two LSPs/PWs?
>
>  *Scenario-9:*
> Operator1
> -------------------------Operator2------------------------Operator3---------------------------Operator-4
>  (ICC - IP capable)    (Global_ID- IP incapable)        (Global_ID IP
> capable)          (ICC IP incapable)
>
> Can single LSP/PW be established between Operator1 and Opearator-4?
> Is this a valid scenario?
>
> --
> Best Regards,
> Venkatesan Mahalingam.
>



-- 
Best Regards,
Venkatesan Mahalingam.