Re: [mpls] mpls wg last call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers-01
George Swallow <swallow@cisco.com> Thu, 29 April 2010 14:19 UTC
Return-Path: <swallow@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCB043A6B0A; Thu, 29 Apr 2010 07:19:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.226
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.226 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.513, BAYES_05=-1.11, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 LJwmjgn6ploq; Thu, 29 Apr 2010 07:19:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com (rtp-iport-1.cisco.com [64.102.122.148]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 817833A6C06; Thu, 29 Apr 2010 07:14:50 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: rtp-iport-1.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AncFAMUx2UutJV2Z/2dsb2JhbACBP5pyXXGkNpoIAoUOBA
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.52,295,1270425600"; d="scan'208,217"; a="106314741"
Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Apr 2010 14:14:22 +0000
Received: from xbh-rcd-202.cisco.com (xbh-rcd-202.cisco.com [72.163.62.201]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o3TEELY1018355; Thu, 29 Apr 2010 14:14:22 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-106.cisco.com ([72.163.62.148]) by xbh-rcd-202.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 29 Apr 2010 09:14:03 -0500
Received: from 10.98.32.165 ([10.98.32.165]) by XMB-RCD-106.cisco.com ([72.163.62.148]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Thu, 29 Apr 2010 14:14:02 +0000
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.24.0.100205
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:14:01 -0400
From: George Swallow <swallow@cisco.com>
To: Shahram Davari <davari@broadcom.com>, Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>, mpls@ietf.org, mpls-tp@ietf.org, pwe3@ietf.org, ccamp@ietf.org
Message-ID: <C7FF0C69.24940%swallow@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [mpls] mpls wg last call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers-01
Thread-Index: AcrBczT1LsEVDiSwTX2v9QSMrvpjyAAA7NaQCYvTuPM=
In-Reply-To: <2C2F1EBA8050E74EA81502D5740B4BD68171AE5BF5@SJEXCHCCR02.corp.ad.broadcom.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3355380842_133468876"
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Apr 2010 14:14:03.0322 (UTC) FILETIME=[3892E9A0:01CAE7A6]
Subject: Re: [mpls] mpls wg last call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers-01
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 14:19:05 -0000
Shahram - See inline On 3/11/10 7:27 PM, "Shahram Davari" <davari@broadcom.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Couple of comments: > > 1) Why the Interface_ID is 32-bit while the Tunnel_ID is 16-bit? Do we need to > support more interfaces than tunnels? GS: Planning to change scope of Tunnel_ID. Just needs to be unique in the context of the Session Object as defined in 3209 with source address used as the extended tunnel-id > 2) The draft defines the Global_Tunnel_ID as: > Src-Global_ID::Src-Node_ID::Src-Tunnel_Num:: > Dst-Global_ID::Dst-Node_ID::Dst-Tunnel_Num > > This seems to define a bidirectional tunnel. Is that the intent? If so please > clarify. If not then why Dst-Global_ID::Dst-Node_ID::Dst-Tunnel_Num is needed? > GS: The scope is bidirectional. But I suppose it can be applied to unidirectional as well. I still don¹t understand the requirement for unidirectional seems to be that bidirectional with 0 data-bandwidth in the reverse direction would do better as you would have a return path for OAM and DCC etc. > > 3) Is section 5.2 talking about unidirectional LSP or bidirectional LSP? > GS: Ditto > > 4) Section 7.1.2.1 says: > Since a MEG pertains to a single MPLS-TP Tunnel, IP compatible MEG_IDs > for MPLS-TP Tunnels are simply the corresponding Tunnel_IDs > > Assuming the Tunnel_ID is a unidirectional ID, then this statement implies > that for the reverse direction a different MEG_ID is required. Is that the > intent? If so why? > GS: Not unidirectional! > > 5) Why are drafts part of the normative references? > Cut and paste error actually! Thanks for pointing it out! > > 6) Will section 8 (open issues) be removed before publishing? This section > implies that the MEP and MIP definition is not yet aligned with framework? > GS: Yes > > Regards, > Shahram > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: mpls-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Loa > Andersson > Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 3:33 PM > To: mpls@ietf.org; mpls-tp@ietf.org; pwe3@ietf.org; ccamp@ietf.org > Subject: [mpls] mpls wg last call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers-01 > > All, > > this is to start an MPLS working group last call on > draft-ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers-01 > > There is a discussion on the OAM model for MS-PWs where we haven't been > able to come to conclusion. Once we reach agreement the document will > be updated. Comments in this area are welcome during the working group > last call. > > > Please send your comments to the mpls-tp@ietf.org mailing list. > > The working group last ends eob April 2nd. > > /Loa > > -- > > Loa Andersson > > Sr Strategy and Standards Manager > Ericsson /// > phone: +46 10 717 52 13 > +46 767 72 92 13 > > email: loa.andersson@ericsson.com > loa@pi.nu > > > > > _______________________________________________ > mpls mailing list > mpls@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls > > > _______________________________________________ > mpls mailing list > mpls@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls >
- [mpls] mpls wg last call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-id… Loa Andersson
- Re: [mpls] mpls wg last call on draft-ietf-mpls-t… Shahram Davari
- Re: [mpls] mpls wg last call on draft-ietf-mpls-t… Shahram Davari
- Re: [mpls] mpls wg last call on draft-ietf-mpls-t… Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [mpls] mpls wg last call on draft-ietf-mpls-t… Sriganesh Kini
- Re: [mpls] mpls wg last call on draft-ietf-mpls-t… Attila Takacs
- Re: [mpls] mpls wg last call on draft-ietf-mpls-t… Diego Caviglia
- Re: [mpls] [mpls-tp] mpls wg last call on draft-i… George Swallow
- Re: [mpls] [mpls-tp] mpls wg last call on draft-i… Maarten Vissers
- Re: [mpls] [mpls-tp] mpls wg last call on draft-i… neil.2.harrison
- Re: [mpls] [mpls-tp] mpls wg last call on draft-i… Maarten Vissers
- Re: [mpls] [mpls-tp] mpls wg last call on draft-i… neil.2.harrison
- Re: [mpls] mpls wg last call on draft-ietf-mpls-t… Shahram Davari
- Re: [mpls] [mpls-tp] mpls wg last call on draft-i… George Swallow
- Re: [mpls] [mpls-tp] mpls wg last call on draft-i… George Swallow
- Re: [mpls] mpls wg last call on draft-ietf-mpls-t… George Swallow
- Re: [mpls] [mpls-tp] mpls wg last call on draft-i… venkatesan mahalingam
- Re: [mpls] [CCAMP] [mpls-tp] mpls wg last call on… Lou Berger
- Re: [mpls] [mpls-tp] mpls wg last call on draft-i… venkatesan mahalingam
- Re: [mpls] [PWE3] [mpls-tp] mpls wg last call ond… George Swallow
- Re: [mpls] [PWE3] [mpls-tp] mpls wg last call ond… venkatesan mahalingam