Re: 6LSA IETF Drafts
"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Tue, 03 May 2005 22:59 UTC
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DT6Mh-0001ey-JC; Tue, 03 May 2005 18:59:43 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DT6Me-0001eQ-DC; Tue, 03 May 2005 18:59:42 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA21148; Tue, 3 May 2005 18:59:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from relay1.mail.uk.clara.net ([80.168.70.141]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DT6ab-0002Hd-Lm; Tue, 03 May 2005 19:14:07 -0400
Received: from du-069-0067.access.clara.net ([217.158.132.67] helo=Puppy) by relay1.mail.uk.clara.net with smtp (Exim 4.46) id 1DT6MX-000Fx6-Ir; Tue, 03 May 2005 23:59:34 +0100
Message-ID: <097301c55034$0de54d60$1c849ed9@Puppy>
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>
References: <9C422444DE99BC46B3AD3C6EAFC9711B087EE13D@tayexc13.americas.cpqcorp.net> <04fc01c54bf9$f7083fa0$1c849ed9@Puppy> <4277530A.3070901@zurich.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 00:01:32 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 67c1ea29f88502ef6a32ccec927970f0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org, rtgwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: 6LSA IETF Drafts
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
List-Id: rtgwg.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org
Brian, > There is one important difference, which is that the M in MPLS > stands for multiprotocol. A label switched architecture for > one particular network layer protocol is not the same as > a multiprotocol architecture. Very true. Limiting the scope allows the potential of optimizations. OTH, the M in MPLS stands for multiprotocol. And the G in GMPLS stands for generalized. So one might assume that they are capable of handling IPv6 already. But I think there is a little fuzziness in your statement. :-) I don't think there is such a thing as "a label switched architecture for one particular network layer protocol." I mean: what is a protocol? What the proposal appears to have is: - A definition of a way to label layer 3 packets so that they can be switched. - A way to exchange and synchronize labels between 6LSRs. I think the first point may fly (and it is not disimilar to suggestions in previous IETF meetings, although they were more focused on IPv4). I am interested to know how (and why) the second point differs from the label distribution techniques developed in the MPLS and CCAMP WGs. Cheers, Adrian > > Jim, > > > > Thanks for the heads-up. > > > > Please ensure that any BOF you hold does not conflict with either the MPLS > > or CCAMP working group meetins. I predict that many people will wish to > > attend all three meetings. > > > > After a preliminary reading of draft-chakravorty-6lsa-01.txt it seems to > > me that what you are suggesting has massive overlap with MPLS and GMPLS. > > That you are proposing a form of layer 3 switching which is not part of > > MPLS or GMPLS (but which has been suggested at several previous IETF > > meetings) is a fairly minor fact since the data plane operation of > > swapping and switching is unchanged. That is, you are proposing a new form > > of labeling. > > > > The bigger difference comes in how the labels are distributed, and in this > > context, one might ask what is wrong with existing label distribution > > schemes. > > > > But clearly I need to read in more detail. > > > > Cheers, > > Adrian > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Bound, Jim" <jim.bound@hp.com> > > To: <ipv6@ietf.org> > > Cc: <rtgwg@ietf.org> > > Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 7:34 PM > > Subject: 6LSA IETF Drafts > > > > > > Folks, > > > > See below draft and two attached that will be available after the IETF. > > It provides a solution for IPv6 Label Switch Architecture that does not > > compete with MPLS or QOS work in progress in the industry at ITU, etc. > > > > http://ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-chakravorty-6lsa-01.txt > > > > If some of you would do me a favor and review and send comments to Sham > > Chakravorty schakra@mitre.org, Jim.Bound@nav6tf.org, and Kevin Zhang > > kzhang@mitre.org I would appreciate it. We will have a BOF most likely > > on 6LSA at the Paris meeting to see if this would be its own working > > group. We will set up industry list for technical persons to work on it > > until then if we get enough responses. I am pretty sure we should do > > this here in the IETF not go to the ITU. Also we will be at the > > Minneapolis IETF so if you have in person comments that is appreciate > > too. > > > > Thanks > > /jim > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>_______________________________________________ > >>Rtgwg mailing list > >>Rtgwg@ietf.org > >>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg > >> > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > > ipv6@ietf.org > > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > _______________________________________________ Rtgwg mailing list Rtgwg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
- 6LSA IETF Drafts Bound, Jim
- Re: 6LSA IETF Drafts Adrian Farrel
- Re: 6LSA IETF Drafts Adrian Farrel
- Re: 6LSA IETF Drafts Brian E Carpenter