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

[Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>]

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]
>
> 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]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>

-- 


Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: [phone]