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

George,

Thanks for your clarification. Assuming you will add clarification to the draft for the issues raised, you can consider these comments closed.

-Shahram

From: George Swallow [mailto:swallow@cisco.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 7:14 AM
To: Shahram Davari; Loa Andersson; mpls@ietf.org; mpls-tp@ietf.org; pwe3@ietf.org; ccamp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mpls] mpls wg last call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers-01

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 don't 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