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

["Aissaoui, Mustapha (Mustapha)" <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Andy for the reference. Indeed, I was referring to assignment of initial label and of any subsequent label change of an LSP or a PW by configuration. This is sometimes referred to as “manual” configuration and the LSP or PW is referred to as static.

That definition fits I believe what is being described in draft-hao-mpls-ip-hard-pipe-01 but Loa can confirm.

Regards,
Mustapha.

From: Andrew G. Malis [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 8:52 AM
To: Loa Andersson
Cc: Aissaoui, Mustapha (Mustapha); [e-mail]; Nevil Brownlee
Subject: 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 <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> 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:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>]
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 3:21 AM
To: Aissaoui, Mustapha (Mustapha); [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
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:
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

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
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

--


Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: [phone]<tel:%2B46%20739%2081%2021%2064>

--


Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: [phone]<tel:%2B46%20739%2081%2021%2064>

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls