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

"Aissaoui, Mustapha (Mustapha)" <mustapha.aissaoui@alcatel-lucent.com> Wed, 29 April 2015 17:26 UTC

Return-Path: <mustapha.aissaoui@alcatel-lucent.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7549B1ACD6A for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 10:26:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Dy0Y9-5iJYM9 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 10:26:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-fr.alcatel-lucent.com (fr-hpida-esg-01.alcatel-lucent.com [135.245.210.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 162741ACD8E for <mpls@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 10:26:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from us70tusmtp2.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (unknown [135.5.2.64]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id A63E6B45E1E34; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 17:26:17 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from US70UWXCHHUB02.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (us70uwxchhub02.zam.alcatel-lucent.com [135.5.2.49]) by us70tusmtp2.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id t3THQHHb002522 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 29 Apr 2015 13:26:17 -0400
Received: from US70UWXCHMBA01.zam.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.7.190]) by US70UWXCHHUB02.zam.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.5.2.49]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 13:26:17 -0400
From: "Aissaoui, Mustapha (Mustapha)" <mustapha.aissaoui@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [mpls] Review of draft-hao-mpls-ip-hard-pipe-01
Thread-Index: AdCBzIr6SsqnVpHOQqOMLXhwS/KfnQAogseAAAwv7YA=
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 17:26:17 +0000
Message-ID: <4A79394211F1AF4EB57D998426C9340D94833E1C@US70UWXCHMBA01.zam.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <4A79394211F1AF4EB57D998426C9340D948330B5@US70UWXCHMBA01.zam.alcatel-lucent.com> <55408663.1070906@pi.nu>
In-Reply-To: <55408663.1070906@pi.nu>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.5.27.17]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/bwgYBI8zA4ELpUYgv165u-jjPmM>
Cc: Nevil Brownlee <rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Review of draft-hao-mpls-ip-hard-pipe-01
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 17:26:26 -0000

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