Subject: Re: Continued Poll for Adoption of Ethernet I-Ds

From: Igor Bryskin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 08:13:09 -0700 (PDT)

Hi Attila,

Please, see in line.

----- Original Message ----
From: Attila Takacs <[email-masked]>
To: Igor Bryskin <[email-masked]>; Don Fedyk <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 2:54:21 AM
Subject: RE: Continued Poll for Adoption of Ethernet I-Ds

 DIV {
MARGIN:0px;}
Hi 
Igor,
 
    But   how the separation of VLAN ID space would help in this case? If PBB packets   are leaked into PBB-TE they will be immediately dropped because there will be   no PBB-TE connections configured for such packets. If PBB-TE packets are   leaked into PBB, than, since, PBB knows nothing about PBB-TE anyway the   packets will be flooded across the PBB domain.  

Unfortunately, leaking from PBB to PBB-TE does not necessarily means immediate discarding of PBB frames. Due to the VLAN separation between PBB and PBB-TE, there is no clear layering here. Hence leaking can essentially mean that the VID of a bridged (PBB) frame is changed to a VID used for explicitly routed connections (PBB-TE). This does not necessarily means that the frame will be dropped. It is a valid assumption that the MAC address of the PBB frame is configured in the PBB-TE region as well and as such leakig PBB traffic will be forwarded as if it would belong to an explicitly routed connection.

IB>> In order for a packet, leaking from PBB to PBB_TE not be dropped, it is necessary for the triplet from PBB MAC header (SA-DA-VID) to match one of configured on the node PBB-TE connections. Even if one assumes that this is possible, it is highly unlikely to be the case on the next along the connection PBB-TE node. Hence the packet will be dropped either immediately or on the next PBB-TE node.

Cheers,
Igor 
  Note   that what I just wrote is true regardless whether PBB-TE uses specially   allocated ranges of VLANIDs or all VLANIDs. Hence there is no architectural   need for the VLANID space separation.
  
I think this is 
not necessary true, if one allocates the whole VLAN space to PBB-TE then there 
will be no bridged traffic in the network. As a consequence no leaking and no 
other cross effects is to be expected.
 
Best 
regards,
Attila

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com

---

From: "Nurit Sprecher" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 23:54:44 +0300

Hi,

I am not sure any more how we got into this discussion, but I am pretty
much convinced that this does not relate to the GMPLS context. 

The question was on the adoption of the draft on GMPLS for a data plane
that is defined by the IEEE (802.1Qay). This is the way it is defined by
the IEEE and we provide a control plane to control it. I am pretty sure
that the use of the control plane for PBB-TE will ensure a consistent
behavior of the PBB-TE network. 

Personally I am in favor of making this draft an IETF one, and I hope
you are all as well.

Best regards,

Nurit

________________________________

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of ext Igor Bryskin
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 18:13
To: Attila Takacs; Don Fedyk; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Continued Poll for Adoption of Ethernet I-Ds

Hi Attila,

Please, see in line.

----- Original Message ----
From: Attila Takacs <[email-masked]>
To: Igor Bryskin <[email-masked]>; Don Fedyk <[email-masked]>;
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 2:54:21 AM
Subject: RE: Continued Poll for Adoption of Ethernet I-Ds

Hi Igor,

	But how the separation of VLAN ID space would help in this case?
If PBB packets are leaked into PBB-TE they will be immediately dropped
because there will be no PBB-TE connections configured for such packets.
If PBB-TE packets are leaked into PBB, than, since, PBB knows nothing
about PBB-TE anyway the packets will be flooded across the PBB domain.  

Unfortunately, leaking from PBB to PBB-TE does not necessarily means
immediate discarding of PBB frames. Due to the VLAN separation between
PBB and PBB-TE, there is no clear layering here. Hence leaking can
essentially mean that the VID of a bridged (PBB) frame is changed to a
VID used for explicitly routed connections (PBB-TE). This does not
necessarily means that the frame will be dropped. It is a valid
assumption that the MAC address of the PBB frame is configured in the
PBB-TE region as well and as such leakig PBB traffic will be forwarded
as if it would belong to an explicitly routed connection.

IB>> In order for a packet, leaking from PBB to PBB_TE not be dropped,
it is necessary for the triplet from PBB MAC header (SA-DA-VID) to match
one of configured on the node PBB-TE connections. Even if one assumes
that this is possible, it is highly unlikely to be the case on the next
along the connection PBB-TE node. Hence the packet will be dropped
either immediately or on the next PBB-TE node.

Cheers,
Igor 

	Note that what I just wrote is true regardless whether PBB-TE
uses specially allocated ranges of VLANIDs or all VLANIDs. Hence there
is no architectural need for the VLANID space separation.

I think this is not necessary true, if one allocates the whole VLAN
space to PBB-TE then there will be no bridged traffic in the network. As
a consequence no leaking and no other cross effects is to be expected.

Best regards,

Attila