Re: [mpls] [PWE3] [mpls-tp] mpls wg last call ondraft-ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers-01
George Swallow <swallow@cisco.com> Mon, 12 July 2010 20:32 UTC
Return-Path: <swallow@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E19243A6C87; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 13:32:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.435
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.435 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.233, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XVNclhL8RsYR; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 13:32:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com (rtp-iport-1.cisco.com [64.102.122.148]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFC4E3A69FF; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 13:32:11 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: rtp-iport-1.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AqAFAJ4YO0ytJV2Y/2dsb2JhbACBQ54TY3GlBpp5AoJcgkkEiEyCLg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.55,190,1278288000"; d="scan'208,217"; a="131503398"
Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Jul 2010 20:32:05 +0000
Received: from xbh-rcd-201.cisco.com (xbh-rcd-201.cisco.com [72.163.62.200]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o6CKW57V011207; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 20:32:05 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-106.cisco.com ([72.163.62.148]) by xbh-rcd-201.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 12 Jul 2010 15:32:05 -0500
Received: from 10.98.32.163 ([10.98.32.163]) by XMB-RCD-106.cisco.com ([72.163.62.148]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Mon, 12 Jul 2010 20:32:04 +0000
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.25.0.100505
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 16:32:01 -0400
From: George Swallow <swallow@cisco.com>
To: venkatesan mahalingam <venkatflex@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C860F401.275DD%swallow@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [PWE3] [mpls] [mpls-tp] mpls wg last call ondraft-ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers-01
Thread-Index: AcrxGuIPFXGqnEbSTAOCqYWtKQomNww5mYI3
In-Reply-To: <q2k715756491005061108r650202bfm6c36bc6d31a4b7cb@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3361797121_20969207"
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Jul 2010 20:32:05.0309 (UTC) FILETIME=[4AA8F6D0:01CB2201]
Cc: mpls@ietf.org, ccamp@ietf.org, Attila Takacs <Attila.Takacs@ericsson.com>, pwe3@ietf.org, mpls-tp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mpls] [PWE3] [mpls-tp] mpls wg last call ondraft-ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers-01
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 20:32:39 -0000
In line - On 5/6/10 2:08 PM, "venkatesan mahalingam" <venkatflex@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi George, >>> >> Is it there to support associated unidirectional Tunnels/LSPs? If so it >>> should >>> >> be called out in the text. > >> >That was not my original intent, but you are quite correct that this would >> >be very useful. Particularly if the associated tunnels pass through a share >> >mid-point somewhere along the path. > VM: Can you please explain the original intention with an example? > > The original intent was to allow a compact form for a globally unique MEP-ID > that is, > > Node_ID::Tunnel_Num::LSP_ID would be unique within an operator. This requires > that Tunnel_Num be unique to the node (not the node pair). That makes it > impossible to coodinate the Tunnel_Num spaces across nodes, hence two tunnel > numbers. > >>> >> -In Section 5.3 Mapping to GMPLS signaling does not use the >>> Dst-Tunnel_Num. So >>> >> this means that we may have two different tunnels identified with >>> >> Src-Node_ID::Src-Tunnel_Num:: > Dst-Node_ID::Dst-Tunnel_Num. Is this intentional, >>> >> e.g., the associated unidirectional case? > >> >For the associated unidirectional, this works perfectly. For bidirectional, >> >I was thinking of two options. > >> >1) Strict binding - both ends are configure with the full identifier and >> >will only accept the connection if everything matches. > >> >2) Dynamic binding - Source signals with just its Tunnel_Num. RESV message >> >would carry back the destination's tunnel_num. Note that both ends need >> >both pieces for some of the OAM to work. > VM: Do we need extensions in the RSVP-TE signaling to carry back the > destination's tunnel_num in the RESV message? > > Yes, this and probably quite a few more. Note that there is a draft for > adding signaling of OAM capabilities in the works. > > ...George > > Thanks, > Venkatesan Mahalingam > > On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 10:15 PM, George Swallow <swallow@cisco.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 4/2/10 2:53 AM, "Attila Takacs" <Attila.Takacs@ericsson.com> wrote: >> >>> > Hi Matthew and George, >>> > >>> > Please find some comments/questions below. >>> > >>> > -In Section 5.1 you have: >>> > >>> > Src-Node_ID::Src-Tunnel_Num::Dst-Node_ID::Dst-Tunnel_Num >>> > >>> > What is the reason of having a Dst-Tunnel_Num besides the Src-Tunnel_Num? >> >> Existing implementations of RSVP-TE have used the tunnel space as global to >> the node. It is difficult if not impossible to coordinate such spaces >> between nodes. In RSVP-TE the coordination does not matter, since the tail >> end of the tunnel doesn't have a real interface - it only receives and >> usually with a PHP of the tunnel label, so the packets only belong to the >> physical interface. >> >> In a bidirectional world, separate tunnel spaces at the two ends becomes >> useful. >> >> If this independence is not need is some environments then one can configure >> just one value and use it in both fields. >> >>> > Is it there to support associated unidirectional Tunnels/LSPs? If so it >>> should >>> > be called out in the text. >> >> That was not my original intent, but you are quite correct that this would >> be very useful. Particularly if the associated tunnels pass through a share >> mid-point somewhere along the path. >> >>> > Same applies to the globally unique case. >> >> Of course. >> >>> > -In Section 5.2 you simply append one LSP_Num to the above. This is a bit >>> > confusing to me, if there are Src/Dst Tunnel_Nums then two LSP_Nums would >>> be >>> > needed too, wouldn't it? >> >> Once, you have independent tunnel-ids, coordination of the LSP numbers >> becomes easy. It also could be used to allow the two ends to readily >> identify which is working and which is protection. >> >>> > -In Section 5.3 Mapping to GMPLS signaling does not use the >>> Dst-Tunnel_Num. So >>> > this means that we may have two different tunnels identified with >>> > Src-Node_ID::Src-Tunnel_Num::Dst-Node_ID::Dst-Tunnel_Num. Is this >>> intentional, >>> > e.g., the associated unidirectional case? >> >> For the associated unidirectional, this works perfectly. For bidirectional, >> I was thinking of two options. >> >> 1) Strict binding - both ends are configure with the full identifier and >> will only accept the connection if everything matches. >> >> 2) Dynamic binding - Source signals with just its Tunnel_Num. RESV message >> would carry back the destination's tunnel_num. Note that both ends need >> both pieces for some of the OAM to work. >> >>> > This should be clarified. >> >> I'll see what I can do. But this is not supposed to the MPLS-TP signaling >> draft. >> >>> > Hmm, maybe the Dst-Tunnel_Num should be omitted altogether. >> >> I'm planning to keep it. >> >>> > -Section 7 has a note saying to be aligned with the OAM fwk, is this still >>> to >>> > be done? >> >> Yes. That draft is also being updated. We appear to be converging. >> >>> > -In section 7.1.2.1 there is a discussion on Tunnel MEG IDs. >>> > How would Tunnel and LSP MEGs be used? What OAM would run at the Tunnel >>> level >>> > and not at the LSP level? >>> > >>> > Do we need Tunnel MEG_IDs as defined in 7.1.2.1? >> >> I had been told early on that MEGs were needed for tunnels. Now getting >> comments that they are not (same comment is in the ITU liaison). So I >> planning to remove it, unless I hear other opinions. >> >>> > -Section 7.1.2.2, the Dst-Tunnel_Num question applies here too. >> >> See above. >> >>> > -Section 8 talks about open issues? When will these be addressed? >> >> Before it is re-issued. Goal is end of next week. >> >> ...George >> >>> > Thanks, >>> > Attila >>> > >>>> >> -----Original Message----- >>>> >> From: mpls-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On >>>> >> Behalf Of Loa Andersson >>>> >> Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 12:33 AM >>>> >> 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-tp mailing list >>> > mpls-tp@ietf.org >>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp >> >> _______________________________________________ >> mpls mailing list >> mpls@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls > >
- [mpls] mpls wg last call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-id… Loa Andersson
- Re: [mpls] mpls wg last call on draft-ietf-mpls-t… Shahram Davari
- Re: [mpls] mpls wg last call on draft-ietf-mpls-t… Shahram Davari
- Re: [mpls] mpls wg last call on draft-ietf-mpls-t… Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [mpls] mpls wg last call on draft-ietf-mpls-t… Sriganesh Kini
- Re: [mpls] mpls wg last call on draft-ietf-mpls-t… Attila Takacs
- Re: [mpls] mpls wg last call on draft-ietf-mpls-t… Diego Caviglia
- Re: [mpls] [mpls-tp] mpls wg last call on draft-i… George Swallow
- Re: [mpls] [mpls-tp] mpls wg last call on draft-i… Maarten Vissers
- Re: [mpls] [mpls-tp] mpls wg last call on draft-i… neil.2.harrison
- Re: [mpls] [mpls-tp] mpls wg last call on draft-i… Maarten Vissers
- Re: [mpls] [mpls-tp] mpls wg last call on draft-i… neil.2.harrison
- Re: [mpls] mpls wg last call on draft-ietf-mpls-t… Shahram Davari
- Re: [mpls] [mpls-tp] mpls wg last call on draft-i… George Swallow
- Re: [mpls] [mpls-tp] mpls wg last call on draft-i… George Swallow
- Re: [mpls] mpls wg last call on draft-ietf-mpls-t… George Swallow
- Re: [mpls] [mpls-tp] mpls wg last call on draft-i… venkatesan mahalingam
- Re: [mpls] [CCAMP] [mpls-tp] mpls wg last call on… Lou Berger
- Re: [mpls] [mpls-tp] mpls wg last call on draft-i… venkatesan mahalingam
- Re: [mpls] [PWE3] [mpls-tp] mpls wg last call ond… George Swallow
- Re: [mpls] [PWE3] [mpls-tp] mpls wg last call ond… venkatesan mahalingam