[Pce] 答复: SR-MPLS-TP: Question on draft-xiong-pce-pcep-extension-sr-tp

[<[e-mail]>]

Hi Loa,






Thanks for your review and inspired comment! It is very important and much appreciated.





Refer to your question, we proposed the terminology of the "SR-MPLS-TP" in the following use case draft.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hu-mpls-sr-inter-domain-use-cases/ 




We plan to work on the definition and scope of SR-MPLS-TP and start discussion in MPLS and SPRING working group next week.


Welcome to review and discuss about that draft and provide suggestions for SR-MPLS-TP!




Best Regards,

Quan









原始邮件



发件人：LoaAndersson <[e-mail]>
收件人：[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
日 期 ：2019年04月10日 03:55
主 题 ：SR-MPLS-TP: Question on draft-xiong-pce-pcep-extension-sr-tp


Authors, Working Group,

MPLS-TP is defined as a network that:

   "It MUST be possible to operate and configure the MPLS-TP data
    plane without any IP forwarding capability in the MPLS-TP data
    plane. (RFC 5654, section 2.3, requirement 36.)"

    ...

  "It MUST be possible to provide protection for the MPLS-TP data
   plane without any IP forwarding capability in the MPLS-TP data
   plane. (RFC 5654, section 2.5.1.1, requirement 63.)"

In fact most MPLS-TP networks are deployed without IP in the data
plane.

SR-MPLS on the other hand is a technology that is defined to USE
IGPs to distribute MPLS-labels, and thus requires IP in the data
plane.

PCEP also runs over TCP/IP.

The draft does not discuss this. I think this is needed, do you
have plans to do so?

/Loa
-- 


Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
Senior MPLS Expert
Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: [phone]