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

["Diego Caviglia" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,
   Some more comments from me more ore less on the same route as Attila.

·         Section 1.1

o        PSC is also used as Packet Switching Capable for OSPF-TE 

·         Section 2

o        Tunnel I think that here a reference to the actual identifier of the quoted entity could help I mean a reference to Section 5

·         Section 4 

o        would be good to have a short explanation why numbered interfaces are not in the scope of MPLS-TP 

·         Section 5

o        Even if section 2 points to 3209 than the Tunnel Identifier chosen is different from what is defined in 3209, Extended Tunnel ID field is missing while there are two different Tunnel Num that is not clear how they works.  I think here the same convention used in 3209 and in GMPLS signaling would be good to avoid to have two or more Tunnel identifiers for MPLS-TP networks using GMPLS. 

o        Why MPLS-TP tunnels must be associated to a LIH?  Why MPLS-TP tunnels need to be configured as FA? Does that imply that in case OSPF-TE is used it must advertise MPLS-TP tunnels as FA each time a new tunnel is created?

·         Section 5.2 I think that sentence "The format of a Tunnel_ID is:" should be "The format of a LSP_ID is:" same for the globally unique case.

·         Section 5.3 addresses some of my above concern about usage of tunnel and lsp identifiers even if is not a 1:1 mapping given that the Dst-Tunnel_Num is not mapped in GMPLS Tunnel ID

·         Remaining of the docs is still WP
        

BR

Diego


 line



DIEGO CAVIGLIA 
Strategic Product Manager 


Ericsson Italy
Product Line PAIB
Via A. Negrone 1/A
Genoa, Italy
Phone [phone]
Mobile [phone]
[e-mail]
www.ericsson.com 



 Ericsson






This Communication is Confidential. We only send and receive email on the basis of the term set out at www.ericsson.com/email_disclaimer 


-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Attila Takacs
Sent: venerdì 2 aprile 2010 8.54
To: Loa Andersson; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [mpls] mpls wg last call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers-01

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: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On 
> Behalf Of Loa Andersson
> Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 12:33 AM
> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> 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 [e-mail] mailing list.
> 
> The working group last ends eob April 2nd.
> 
> /Loa
> 
> --
> 
> Loa Andersson
> 
> Sr Strategy and Standards Manager
> Ericsson ///
>    phone:  [phone]
>            [phone]
> 
>    email:  [e-mail]
>            [e-mail]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> 
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls