Re: [mpls] Review of draft-hao-mpls-ip-hard-pipe-01

Loa,

I think the reference that you're looking for is section 3.11 of RFC 5921.

Cheers,
Andy

On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 3:41 AM, Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> wrote:

> Mustapha,
>
> That is still not a definition possible to refrence.
>
> I've always been a bit confused by the distinction between "static" and
> "dynamic", especially when it comes to labels, a bit less so if we talk
> about LSPs.
>
> To me the term  "static" and "dynamic" seems to indicate how long lived
> or how easy they are to change.
>
> If an NMS or any centralized controller instal and remove LSPs/labels
> with the same frequency as e.g. LDP are they still "static"?
>
> I agree that there is a possible classification of "configured
> LSPs/labels" vs. "signaled LSPs/labels".
>
> In that terminology I'd say that draft-hao-mpls-ip-hard-pipe uses
> configured labels.
>
> Would that terminology be acceptable for you?
>
> /Loa
>
>
> On 2015-04-29 19:26, Aissaoui, Mustapha (Mustapha) wrote:
>
>> Hi Loa,
>> By static label, I meant a label which is assigned to a LSP or a PW by
>> configuration and not by a control plane protocol. I believe this is what
>> is being described in this draft but let me know if I am wrong.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Mustapha.
>>
>>  -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Loa Andersson [mailto:loa@pi.nu]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 3:21 AM
>>> To: Aissaoui, Mustapha (Mustapha); mpls@ietf.org
>>> Cc: Nevil Brownlee
>>> Subject: Re: [mpls] Review of draft-hao-mpls-ip-hard-pipe-01
>>>
>>> Mustapha,
>>>
>>> in line please.
>>>
>>> On 2015-04-28 18:01, Aissaoui, Mustapha (Mustapha) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear all,
>>>> I was asked to review this draft which is intended to be handled in the
>>>>
>>> Independent Stream. Below are my comments to the authors.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Members of this list can also provide comments to the authors. Please
>>>> copy the
>>>>
>>> Independent Submission Editorial Board at the following address:
>>>
>>>> rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Mustapha.
>>>> ----------------------------
>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hao-mpls-ip-hard-pipe-01
>>>>
>>>> 1. Overall comment:
>>>> This document describes how a guaranteed bandwidth service can be
>>>> deployed
>>>>
>>> in a MPLS network by partitioning the network resources into two managed
>>> layers,
>>> referred to as strata. The  guaranteed service layer is referred to as
>>> "Hard Pipe"
>>> stratum.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The management of the resources and the placement of the MPLS tunnels
>>>> and
>>>>
>>> services into the  "Hard Pipe" stratum are performed with a management
>>> system.
>>> Thus the transport and service labels are static but this important
>>> information has
>>> not been stated upfront in the document.
>>>
>>> Do you have a a definition of "static labels" that we can refer to?
>>>
>>> /Loa
>>> Only in section 6 that MPLS-TP was mentioned. Furthermore, the reference
>>> to T-
>>> LDP signaled labels in Section 3 adds to the confusion.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>  I propose that the Introduction and Scope sections be explicit about the
>>>>
>>> framework used to achieve the "Hard Pipe" stratum, that is by means of a
>>> management system and static transport and service labels.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> In fact, I would think the document value would be in describing more
>>>> details of
>>>>
>>> the framework including configuration aspects, resource and service
>>> management
>>> including resilience. These aspects have not been sufficiently addressed
>>> and the
>>> focus was more on how to use MPLS labels to differentiate the two strata.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2. Section 1.1 - Scope:
>>>> As part of the second bullet, I cannot find in the document how a
>>>> router protects
>>>>
>>> the traffic of the "Hard Pipe" stratum if the "Normal IP/MPLS" stratum
>>> overbooks a
>>> link. Having a separate label for the guaranteed service is not
>>> sufficient. The
>>> authors should describe if LSP pre-emption and/or QoS markings are used
>>> to
>>> differentiate the treatment across the strata.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 3. Section 3:
>>>> If the document objective is to describe the framework used, then this
>>>> section
>>>>
>>> should begin by explaining the initial configuration performed by the
>>> NMS to lay
>>> the ground for the building of the two stratums. This includes the
>>> partitioning of the
>>> links, the assignment of transport and service label ranges in the
>>> routers, the
>>> overbooking strategy, etc.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then, you can discuss how a guaranteed service is configured in the
>>>> network
>>>>
>>> using static transport labels and static service labels. This should
>>> cover the
>>> placement of the working and backup paths since Section 6 mentions
>>> MPLS-TP
>>> protection is used.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Next, a description of how the transport LSP and service are monitored
>>>> for
>>>>
>>> continuity and defects.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Finally, the behavior when resources are overbooked and what services
>>>> are pre-
>>>>
>>> empted or degraded should be described.
>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> mpls mailing list
>>>> mpls@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>> Loa Andersson                        email: loa@mail01.huawei.com
>>> Senior MPLS Expert                          loa@pi.nu
>>> Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64
>>>
>>
> --
>
>
> Loa Andersson                        email: loa@mail01.huawei.com
> Senior MPLS Expert                          loa@pi.nu
> Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>