Re: [mpls] My question about "static LSP" in TEAS today

"Andrew G. Malis" <> Wed, 06 April 2016 01:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17F3F12D572 for <>; Tue, 5 Apr 2016 18:44:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GPqoj7SYJQZC for <>; Tue, 5 Apr 2016 18:44:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C711C12D173 for <>; Tue, 5 Apr 2016 18:44:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id j9so21675619obd.3 for <>; Tue, 05 Apr 2016 18:44:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=nZE8444f7FuflXVCJ/tiX14Xa9RMACyksftDeyzjcsI=; b=LcjZSbTJ08t4fjAYLpej8/ncaD7k8wMQ7htrO0EQjEyv6JZQ/J0KpQfpKI9Q7pBxyp FL/5fXItUtGhJ+bFQd9y2mG4gWO5nrAPWrlcoj4c1uxkA9u8oIpT07tihbOZzuIpx7w2 kQlZclYw7JErNw8FpYw/eh3L498ygHERzna4b8bvJ9UBqor6OFv1Z88xjKLk9WwdcES0 iqLzPWViFahJQBG1dgKrrk8TWsHirM6WcPnH/1EA2qJOpHXuHQuPxVtUIGuPjXANivo4 2GvZxYXzhtoqbmcAz3rpAfRYwXS6rXcJxAC6OnmhBRb1v8O3fusX8r+kUZ1JX65fZdni Bymg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=nZE8444f7FuflXVCJ/tiX14Xa9RMACyksftDeyzjcsI=; b=RnEa65O/d9xZ31HttYMEZsyD3iS8/hzGmXn6/k8+nk5rFTsSelVDU+IyVWF1yXHEa2 YCH8LpzaJfefgXAGcLXhoHx54QvgFh4O4KM1uwjQQjcwSmE3MAKiYxtt5qRPDduFwgTi RT3gpPxRX+Bgf2M1Vgw5L0acKsHQGOwaoGgCiXQR5EpkG+ANirgtDILGAZXM2aU2s04r sfPMs9GJR7ZDmkELCjO9eKMnOvkORZBJhcV5p/dI/o6p/JW+v+hV2IKWbSIj6VuB7m9E XS+LaqJ2k4dMGfu6rDI3nKSzRmG2bLwMtVIfdcEYLZgz5ua9dKH9qP8Dxu1yAeTJcwNb 9SaA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJK0VXV3ZShqEib+nkMWZ5fFHl9whRuvvKoUSM2U8i3uoSYXaz5F7DBtanAIKoKjs7QP+prIXWJ4M4qFjQ==
X-Received: by with SMTP id tv8mr7522761oec.60.1459907072184; Tue, 05 Apr 2016 18:44:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 5 Apr 2016 18:44:12 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <05bc01d18f83$c57bfce0$5073f6a0$>
References: <05bc01d18f83$c57bfce0$5073f6a0$>
From: "Andrew G. Malis" <>
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2016 22:44:12 -0300
Message-ID: <>
To: Adrian Farrel <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113686a6716fe3052fc71ac8"
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [mpls] My question about "static LSP" in TEAS today
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2016 01:44:35 -0000


This stirs memories of the good old ATM MIB of yore … we modeled
cross-connects and interfaces, and stitched PVCs (static LSPs as the kids
call them now) by matching labels (VPI/VCI) from one interface to the
connected interface in the next switch.

In the case of SVCs (now dynamic LSPs), we modeled the SVC as a single
network-wide cross-connect.


On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 6:40 PM, Adrian Farrel <> wrote:

> Hi,
> I probably wasn't clear in my question. To restate, my question is why is
> the
> static LSP model modelling an end-to-end LSP and not just a single "cross
> connect"? Alternatively, what is the difference between an LSP provisioned
> by a
> control plane, and an LSP provisioned by the management plane? And we
> might even
> bring in "soft permanent LSPs" that are a stitching together of some static
> segments and some dynamic segments.
> (You might look at the LSR MIB module that can be used to provision [aka
> model]
> static LSPs.)
> When you model maybe you need to think about what is the purpose of
> modelling.
> There are three things going on:
> What is the user/application asking for?
> What state is held in the network?
> What does the data plane have?
> In this case there is no control plane, but there is still distributed
> state
> installed in the network.
> You said that this is not a data plane model, which is fine.
> So you are modelling either the state in the network or the user's request.
> Now, there may be protocol state (such as parameters of RSVP-TE that exist
> to
> keep the protocol on side) that are special, but the parameters that
> describe
> the state that applies to the LSP are surely identical regardless of how
> the LSP
> was set up. That is, the LSP is a sequence interfaces and labels as well
> as some
> information about reserved resources.
> I think I'm rambling. What I am trying to say is that an LSP is an LSP.
> Cheers,
> Adrian
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list