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

[Binny Jeshan <[e-mail]>]

Dear Authors, all,

A gentle reminder.

Thanks.


On 20 April 2014 12:31, Binny Jeshan <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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.
>>
>
>