Re: [mpls] mpls wg last call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers-01

Attila Takacs <Attila.Takacs@ericsson.com> Fri, 02 April 2010 06:53 UTC

Return-Path: <Attila.Takacs@ericsson.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 014533A693C for <mpls@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Apr 2010 23:53:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.144
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.144 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.675, BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13]
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 rt68UeuVyh6p for <mpls@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Apr 2010 23:53:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (mailgw9.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.57]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD3673A6905 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Apr 2010 23:53:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb39-b7b85ae000005cbc-b4-4bb594786926
Received: from esessmw0256.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Brightmail Gateway) with SMTP id A3.C1.23740.87495BB4; Fri, 2 Apr 2010 08:53:44 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ESESSCMS0355.eemea.ericsson.se ([169.254.2.93]) by esessmw0256.eemea.ericsson.se ([10.2.3.125]) with mapi; Fri, 2 Apr 2010 08:53:43 +0200
From: Attila Takacs <Attila.Takacs@ericsson.com>
To: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "mpls-tp@ietf.org" <mpls-tp@ietf.org>, "pwe3@ietf.org" <pwe3@ietf.org>, "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2010 08:53:43 +0200
Thread-Topic: [mpls] mpls wg last call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers-01
Thread-Index: AcrBczLI0hRemNw6QIizlAldPNT1mwQvaaOA
Message-ID: <79F41BA1E9BF3C489375521EF8DDE23C12B1B1A5BB@ESESSCMS0355.eemea.ericsson.se>
References: <97ea8a23065211ee6df8f08ea5e4ba67.squirrel@pi.nu>
In-Reply-To: <97ea8a23065211ee6df8f08ea5e4ba67.squirrel@pi.nu>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
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: Fri, 02 Apr 2010 06:53:14 -0000

Hi Matthew and George,

Please find some comments/questions below.

-In Section 5.1 you have:

Src-Node_ID::Src-Tunnel_Num::Dst-Node_ID::Dst-Tunnel_Num

What is the reason of having a Dst-Tunnel_Num besides the Src-Tunnel_Num? 
Is it there to support associated unidirectional Tunnels/LSPs? If so it should be called out in the text. 

Same applies to the globally unique case.

-In Section 5.2 you simply append one LSP_Num to the above. This is a bit confusing to me, if there are Src/Dst Tunnel_Nums then two LSP_Nums would be needed too, wouldn't it?

-In Section 5.3 Mapping to GMPLS signaling does not use the Dst-Tunnel_Num. So this means that we may have two different tunnels identified with Src-Node_ID::Src-Tunnel_Num::Dst-Node_ID::Dst-Tunnel_Num. Is this intentional, e.g., the associated unidirectional case? This should be clarified.


Hmm, maybe the Dst-Tunnel_Num should be omitted altogether.


-Section 7 has a note saying to be aligned with the OAM fwk, is this still to be done?

-In section 7.1.2.1 there is a discussion on Tunnel MEG IDs.
How would Tunnel and LSP MEGs be used? What OAM would run at the Tunnel level and not at the LSP level?
Do we need Tunnel MEG_IDs as defined in 7.1.2.1?

-Section 7.1.2.2, the Dst-Tunnel_Num question applies here too.

-Section 8 talks about open issues? When will these be addressed?

Thanks,
Attila 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpls-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of Loa Andersson
> Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 12:33 AM
> 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
>