[mpls] Fw: liaison response to to IETF ccamp WG on MFA Forum MPLS CNI
"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Sat, 01 September 2007 21:47 UTC
Return-path: <mpls-bounces@lists.ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IRaoD-0001NR-KQ; Sat, 01 Sep 2007 17:47:13 -0400
Received: from mpls by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IRaoB-0001L5-W8 for mpls-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 01 Sep 2007 17:47:12 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IRaoB-0001Kx-MR for mpls@lists.ietf.org; Sat, 01 Sep 2007 17:47:11 -0400
Received: from heisenberg.zen.co.uk ([212.23.3.141]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IRao9-0005Er-Cm for mpls@lists.ietf.org; Sat, 01 Sep 2007 17:47:11 -0400
Received: from [88.96.235.138] (helo=cortex.aria-networks.com) by heisenberg.zen.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IRao8-0001hQ-F7 for mpls@lists.ietf.org; Sat, 01 Sep 2007 21:47:08 +0000
Received: from your029b8cecfe ([81.140.15.32] RDNS failed) by cortex.aria-networks.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Sat, 1 Sep 2007 22:47:07 +0100
Message-ID: <05e101c7ece1$9a1ff1d0$0300a8c0@your029b8cecfe>
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: mpls@lists.ietf.org
Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2007 22:46:42 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type="response"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Sep 2007 21:47:08.0037 (UTC) FILETIME=[A4D1FB50:01C7ECE1]
X-Originating-Heisenberg-IP: [88.96.235.138]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: f0ea5880a0890be2408609376fa519aa
Subject: [mpls] Fw: liaison response to to IETF ccamp WG on MFA Forum MPLS CNI
X-BeenThere: mpls@lists.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.lists.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/mpls>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@lists.ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: mpls-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Hi, The MPLS WG may be interested in a liaison received by CCAMP on the definition of a CNI by the MFA. Adrian ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> To: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2007 10:22 PM Subject: Fw: liaison response to to IETF ccamp WG on MFA Forum MPLS CNI > Hi, > > We have received the attached liaison from the MFA. > I expect it will be posted on the IETF web site in due course. In the mean > time, you can find it at www.olddog.co.uk/ccamp.htm > > The liaison does not ask for any action from us, but we may want to review > the new specification and comment on it. > > Thanks, > Adrian > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "J. Rao Cherukuri" <cherukuri@juniper.net> > To: <IAB@ietf.org>; <statements@ietf.org>; <adrian@olddog.co.uk>; > <dbrungard@att.com> > Cc: "David Sinicrope (RL/TNT)" <david.sinicrope@ericsson.com>; > <andrew.g.malis@verizon.com>; "BOCCI Matthew" > <Matthew.Bocci@alcatel-lucent.co.uk>; "Ross Callon" <rcallon@juniper.net>; > <dward@cisco.com>; <rao.cherukuri@juniper.net> > Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 8:34 PM > Subject: liaison response to to IETF ccamp WG on MFA Forum MPLS CNI > > > Hi Adrian, Deborah, > > Thank you and the CCAMP WG for providing such thorough and valuable > comments. We have reviewed and incorporated many of them into the CNI > document. There are a few that we have not incorporated for various > reasons. We have provided the rationale for these decisions inline > below. > > Please let us know if you have any questions or concerns. > > Best Regards, > David Sinicrope AD Working Group Chair > > Rao Cherukuri TC Chair > > *************************************** > > We note that you have opted to define a new RSVP object to support a > multi-class LSP following the rules for vendor private assignment as > described in section 2.2 of RFC3936. We believe that you may have > misinterpreted the purpose of vendor private extensions since such > extensions are specifically not intended to interoperate, but you are > attempting to define a specification directly for the purpose of > interworking devices from different vendors. In your case it would seem > to make more sense to define a standardized extension to the protocol. > > MFAF> At the time of development of our specification draft-andersson > was not adopted by IETF. Also, the Multi Class specification wasn't in > a state where we could refer to it. Consequently, we chose to use the > vendor private TLV to expedite completion of our document. In > subsequent revisions of the CNI we will consider following > draft-andersson and obtaining a standard Multi Class TLV. > > Should you decide that a standardized extension is better able to > deliver the functionality that you require, we should like to draw your > attention to draft-andersson-rtg-gmpls-change-06.txt that defines how > other SDOs may influence the development of MPLS and GMPLS protocols > within the IETF, and which is currently in IETF last call. The (G)MPLS > suites of protocols have become popular among multiple SDOs resulting in > a need for IETF to clarify its role as the responsible SDO for (G)MPLS > protocol extensions so as to prevent unnecessary replication of > functionality and the resulting interoperability problems. > > 1. The document is marked as Straw Ballot Text. Can you tell us > what that means the status of the work is? > MFAF> Review is completed and document is in "last call". > > 2. We think that your use of terminology may be a little loose. > > In many cases, where you say "MPLS" you are probably referring > to the data plane, and specifically a packet-switching data > plane with an MPLS encapsulation. > > But in other cases, "MPLS" and "MPLS-TE" are synonymous and > refer to a signaling/routing control plane using the MPLS-TE > extensions to RSVP and to the two IGPs OSPF and IS-IS. > > In many cases you say "GMPLS-TE" which is not something we > specifically recognise although we can assume that you mean > simply "GMPLS". Sometimes, where you are trying to > distinguish a TE LSP established using MPLS-TE from one set > up using GMPLS you may intend to say "GMPLS TE-LSP" rather > than "GMPLS-TE LSP". > > We feel that close attention to the terminology may help > clarify the document. > > MFAF> We have gone through the document and reflected your suggestions > in the text. > > 3. Section 1.1 states: > The purpose of this specification is to define an MPLS-based > Client to Network Interconnect (CNI) for establishing GMPLS > Traffic Engineered (TE) Label Switched Paths (LSPs). > Can we assume that this means that the client-to-client LSPs > are established using GMPLS protocols, but that the signaling > within the core network is out of scope? Especially since > section 1.2 states: > At the CNI, it is not desirable to have the client equipment > participate in the internal control protocols of the MPLS > network. > MFAF> We have reflected this suggestion in the text of section 1.2. > > 4. Can you clarify why you have selected GMPLS protocols and not > MPLS-TE protocols on which to build your CNI. We are not > opposed to this, but are seeking to understand the choice. > Perhaps the main reason is the requirement for bidirectional > LSPs. > MFAF> To facilitate use of bi-direction LSPs and to leverage existing > implementations of the standard. > We have reflected this rationale in the text of section 1.2. > > 5. Can you clarify whether the core network is assumed to be > PSC only? That is, for example, if the CNI encoding is POS, > would it be acceptable for the PE and the rest of the core > network to switch the LSP as TDM until the remote PE or even > CE, or do you require that the PE must perform packet > switching? If the PE must perform packet switching, is it > still acceptable for the core LSP (PE-PE) to be switched at > some other technology? > MFAF>We assume that the core is PSC only. The CNI is implemented at the > edge of the network. > Details of the core network beyond what is stated in section 1.3 are > beyond the scope of the CNI. > > 6. Section 1.3 states: > Where the network uses MPLS-TE signaling, the PE routers are > expected to perform the translation. > It is our opinion that this translation is non-trivial and may > be impossible for some of the GMPLS services that are > available at the CNI. For example, supporting a bidirectional > service over an MPLS-TE signaling network requires additional > coordination between the end-points that is currently not > available in the MPLS-TE extensions to RSVP-TE. > From the following text in section 7.1, we assume that the PE > may refuse a CNI request if it is unable to provide the > required level of function. > The transport network in the provider network is a GMPLS or > MPLS-TE based packet switched network that must support > request for uni-directional LSPs and may support requests > for bi-directional LSPs > MFAF> In section 1.3 we state that the core has support for a minimum > set of GMPLS capabilities. > e.g., bidirectional LSP support, traffic engineering QoS capabilities. > > 7. Section 2.1 > The correct expansion of "GMPLS" is "Generalized Multiprotocol > Label Switching". In view of you chosen expansion of "MPLS", > you may prefer to show this as "Generalized Multi Protocol > Label Switching". > > The correct expansion of "FEC" is "Forwarding Equivalence > Class". > > MFAF> We have reflected this suggestion in the text. See the Acronyms > section. > > 8. Section 7.2 states: > The CE and PE nodes are inter-connected by point-to-point > interfaces. The signaling channel is "in-band", i.e., the > labeled packets share the same access connection as the > RSVP-TE signaling. > This is an acceptable, but not required, method of deploying > GMPLS-based signaling. It is our suspicion reading this very > short section that it is your intention to forbid the use of > the IF_ID RSVP_HOP Object at the CNI. Can you confirm or deny > this? > > MFAF> At our last meeting in Chicago we decided to allow the use of the > IF_ID_RSVP_HOP as an option. See section 7.2. > > 9. Section 7.3 states: > A client need only know its own address, a reachable address > of the adjacent PE-node, and know the address of any other > client to which it wishes to connect. The addresses listed > above must be configured on each client. > > A PE need only know (and track) the addresses on interfaces > attached to clients, as well as the Node IDs of these > attached clients. In addition, the IP/MPLS network needs to > know reachability to the interface addresses and Node IDs of > other PEs to which an attached client is permitted to > connect. > > This appears to miss the fact that the client will address a > CNI connection request to a remote client address. The local > PE must, therefore, know how to route to these client > addresses that are outside the core routing domain. > > Perhaps the final sentence should say CE not PE? > > But in 9.1.2 you have: > When a PE receives a Path message from a client that > contains no ERO indicating transit network selection, then > the PE is responsible for progressing the Path message > toward the destination. The progression of the Path > message is beyond the scope of this specification. > > While the details are clearly out of scope, it *is* relevant > to the definition of the CNI how the core acquires and > distributes the client-side addressing information that is > necessary for routing across the core. You will observe that > the problem you are solving (including the fact that the > client addresses may come from an address space that overlaps > with the core address space) is similar to the L3VPN problem. > > MFAF> We corrected the text to address this issue in section 7.3. > Also see the changes in section 9.1.2. > > 10. What is the expected behavior from the core network when an > E-LSP is requested at the CNI? > > Can we assume that the expectation is that an appropriate > E-LSP will also be established across the core so that > Diffserv behavior will be performed along the whole length > of the client-client connection, or is this not a > requirement? > > If core Diffserv behavior is required, how will the core > handle the presence of multiple classes? > > MFAF>This is assumed and although how it is done is beyond the > scope of the specification, section 7.4.1 now states what is expected of > the network. > > 11. You are correct to observe that the ERO is optional in GMPLS > implementations (sections 9.1.1 and 9.1.2), however, since > you are specifying a profile for use at the CNI, and since > both the CE and the PE must be CNI-aware (i.e., you cannot > simply use legacy implementations) you may find it convenient > to mandate support of the ERO at the CNI. > > We believe that in practice all implementations support ERO. > > MFAF> We still do not mandate ERO because there was no agreement > within the MFAF TC to mandate it. See changes made in 9.1.2. > > 12. In section 9.1.1 you have: > The client populates the ERO object with only one sub-object > containing an Autonomous System Number (ASN) representing a > transit network beyond the originating service provider. > The client equipment must set the ASN sub-object 'L' bit to > 1, indicating a loose route. > It is not completely clear what is meant by 'the originating > service provider', but we assume that this refers to the > network that the ingress PE belongs to. In this case, this > ERO is malformed and will be rejected. The first sub-object > of a received ERO must always define an abstract node that > the receiver is a member of. See RFC 3209, section 4.3.4.1, > point 1). > > MFAF> We reflected this in section 9.1.1. > > 13. In section 9.4: > PE next to a client receives a PathErr with > Path_State_Removed from the network, it may in turn > generate either a ResvTear or PathTear, whichever is > applicable, to be sent to the client. > There are no circumstances in which a PE receiving a PathErr > with Path_State_Removed from the network would send PathTear > to the client. > > It is unclear to us why you would specify that the CNI built > on GMPLS might not use this standard GMPLS procedure. > > MFAF>We reflected this in section 9.4. > > 14. In section 9.5.3: > The Extended Classtype object is signaled in the Path > message, and saved in the Path State Block (PSB) at every > hop. > We recommend that you simply state that the state is stored > as every hop. The existence of a PSB is implementation- > specific. > > Can you please clarify "at every hop". Are you expecting > nodes in the core network to store this information. If so, > you should note that the core nodes will not recognize the > object class and will reject any messages carrying it. > > We also suggest that before progressing your own extensions > for multi-class DSTE LSPs you should look at the existing > work within the IETF: > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-minei-diffserv-te-multi-class- > 02.txt > <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-minei-diffserv-te-multi-class > -02.txt> . > If this work is not adequate for your requirements, we > would encourage you to work with its authors to produce > a single standardized solution within the IETF. > > MFAF>We removed all references to PSB, and all reference to "at every > hop". > This better aligns with our scope of not specifying the network > internals. > See section 9.5.3. > > 15. In 9.5.4: > An LSR that recognizes the Extended Classtype object and > that receives a Path message which contains the Extended > Classtype object but which does not contain a Label Request > object or which does not have a session type of > LSP_Tunnel_IPv4, must send a PathErr message towards the > sender with the error code 'extended-classtype Error' and > an error value of 'Unexpected Extended Classtype object'. > These are defined below: > Why do you define new parsing behavior for the absence of a > Label Request object (by the way, you should say Generalized > Label Request object, since this is GMPLS)? The absence of > mandatory objects is already covered in RFC2205. > > MFAF> We removed the reference to "the absence of (Generalized) Label > Request object". > This implies that if the Generalized Label Request object is missing, > the relevant procedures of RFC 2205 will > be performed. > > 16. The error code defined in 9.5.4 is conformant with RFC 3936. > You may wish to look at draft-swallow-rsvp-user-error-spec > in case this gives you the ability to handle more detailed > private error codes. > > MFAF> In our specifications we are limited to referring only to > documents > that have been progressed to the RFC editor queue and beyond. We will > certainly > consider reference to draft-swallow-rsvp-user-error-spec in future > revisions of the CNI. > > Finally, we would like to refer you to > draft-kumaki-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interwork-reqts-01.txt and > draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interwork-fmwk-01.txt for the latest state > of discussions in CCAMP with respect to interworking MPLS and GMPLS > networks. > > MFAF> Thanks for pointing out these documents. We will consider these > should our work > scope be expanded to include details of the core network and MPLS and > GMPLS interworking. > > Attachment(s): > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ mpls mailing list mpls@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
- [mpls] Fw: liaison response to to IETF ccamp WG o… Adrian Farrel