Re: [PWE3] Questions relating to draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-15.

[Binny Jeshan <[e-mail]>]

Hi Samer,

I have few questions now.

1) How many MAX redundant Groups can be possible between two Peers?
[Binny]: In my understanding one RG configured in a PE can cater many
instances of Applications. for example, one can associate a mLACP
Aggregation bundle t1 and t2  to be a part of Redundant group 1. Please
clarify  and confirm.

2) As i understand from this draft, applications send their TLV's to the
peer through the ICCP channel. Which means mLACP Application Data Message
would look like -> ICC Header (6.1.1)  with Type 0x703+ mLACP SystemConfig
Tlv (type 0032 - section 7.2.3) . Is this understanding correct that the
stack order looks like Ethernet + IP + LDP Header + ICCP header +
Application TLVs.

If my understanding in (1) was right, then How different Application
Instances are distinuguished in the Packets received. (for example mLACP
may have two MC-LAG instances that its managing) - but the ICC header will
have only one RG ID but the following TLV could belong to one of the
application instances running on top of the RG.  How to demultiplex that.

I  see a reference to ROID. Section 4.3 " That allows *separate systems in
an RG **to use a common handle* to reference the protected entity" .
This draft does not define how exactly the ROID bytes will be encoded, as
far as i read. This leaves interop malfunction also, various options to
code the ROID. one option could
ROID =
But im left unclear where i will fit this ROID in each type of packet sent
by the application

3) How do i exactly code the ROID? can you please standardize that >
Comment please.
4) Why ROID is not mentioned to be a Part of EVERY TLV or atleast have a
Application Header or something like that to carry it ?

Thanks,
Binny.
Aricent.



On 31 March 2014 23:15, Samer Salam (ssalam) <[e-mail]> wrote:

>  Hi Binny,
>
>   From: Binny Jeshan <[e-mail]>
> Date: Thursday, 20 March, 2014 3:12 AM
> To: "Luca Martini (lmartini)" <[e-mail]>om>, Samer Salam <
> [e-mail]>gt;, "Ali Sajassi (sajassi)" <[e-mail]>om>, "
> [e-mail]" <[e-mail]>uk>,
> "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>om>, "
> [e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Questions relating to draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-15.
>
>   Hello,
>
>  I came across this when reading this draft.
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-15
>
>  1)
>  Section 7.2.5<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-15#section-7.2.5>.5>.
> mLACP Port Config TLV says,
> - Flags
>
>        Valid values are:
>
>             -i. Synchronized (0x01)
>
>                 Indicates that the sender has concluded transmitting all
>                 member link port configurations for a given Aggregator.
>
>  Shouldn't this be stating it as "given Port" ?
>
>  >>> Aggregator is the term used by the IEEE 802.1AX standard to refer to
> the Ethernet "bundle", so it is correct as is.
>
>
>  2) I am not able to spot mail archives of this topic in the PWE3 group .
> Did I do a limited search or a wrong directory search? please direct me to
> the right mail archive where I can see discussion emails about this draft
> so that I can know more details from it for better understanding.
>
>
>    >>>> What type of information are you looking for? The draft is quite
> detailed and self-explanatory. If you have questions, please post them.
>
>  Regards,
> Samer
>
>    I am new to this Topic of mLACP and its aggregation. I may have more
> queries later on.
>
>  Thanks,
> Binny
>
>  Aricent, India.
>