Subject: [mpls-tp] MPLS-TP MS-PW an optional layer?

From: Maarten Vissers <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 10:30:08 +0100

Looking at the current design of a packet transport network of a european
operator, I found that this network did not include the MS-PW layer in its
stack. Instead this network used the ETH layer as generic transport service
layer for p2p, p2mp, rmp and mp2mp services.

The network deploys MPLS LSPs as tunnel connections, interconnecting the
metro core nodes. Those metro core nodes are interconnected via ETH tunnel
connections with the metro edge nodes. The layer stack of this packet
transport network is as follows:

  p2p, p2mp, rmp, mp2mp customer services
--------------------------------------------
|      ETH Channel (transport service)     |
--------------------------------------------
 |  ETH  | | ETH Path | | MPLS Path (LSP) |
 |Section| ------------ -------------------
 ---------  |   ETH  |   |  MPLS Section |
 | 802.3 |  | Section|   -----------------
 ---------  ----------   |     802.3     |
            |  802.3 |   -----------------
            ----------
  ACCESS      METRO           CORE

I expect that this network architecture is present in other networks as
well. As such my proposal is to include a mode in which there is no MS-PW
layer.

Regards,
Maarten

---

From: Ben Niven-Jenkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 10:45:21 +0000

Maarten,

I thought this was already covered (but I haven't opened the documents to
check).

Certainly the requirements do not mandate a MS-PW layer is present.

Ben

On 09/02/2009 09:30, "Maarten Vissers" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> mpls-tp mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp

---

From: Maarten Vissers <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 11:59:42 +0100

Ben,

Thanks for clarifying this item. Let's make sure that this is unambiguously
included in the documents, preferably by means of explicit layer stack
figures. 

Regards,
Maarten

-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Niven-Jenkins [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: maandag 9 februari 2009 11:45
To: Maarten Vissers; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [mpls-tp] MPLS-TP MS-PW an optional layer?

Maarten,

Ben

On 09/02/2009 09:30, "Maarten Vissers" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Looking at the current design of a packet transport network of a 
> european operator, I found that this network did not include the MS-PW 
> layer in its stack. Instead this network used the ETH layer as generic 
> transport service layer for p2p, p2mp, rmp and mp2mp services.
> 
> The network deploys MPLS LSPs as tunnel connections, interconnecting 
> the metro core nodes. Those metro core nodes are interconnected via 
> ETH tunnel connections with the metro edge nodes. The layer stack of 
> this packet transport network is as follows:
> 
>  |  ETH  | | ETH Path | | MPLS Path (LSP) |  |Section| ------------ 
> -------------------
> I expect that this network architecture is present in other networks 
> as well. As such my proposal is to include a mode in which there is no 
> MS-PW layer.
> 
> Regards,
> Maarten
>

---

From: Maarten Vissers <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 08:22:12 +0100

For the case an MPLS-TP network deploys the ETH layer as its "transport
service layer" it will be necessary to support the ATM, FR, HDLC, PPP, SDH
services over Ethernet. In absence of standardized mappings for those client
signals, it is necessary to specify such mappings within the scope of
MPLS-TP.

To maximize the reuse of silicon and to support interworking with MPLS
networks, those mappings should be PWE3 based mappings extended with a TYPE,
SA and DA field. The TYPE field should carry an Ethertype value identifying
the specific service (e.g. ATM All:1 cell mode, SDH VC-12, etc).

Regards,
Maarten

-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Niven-Jenkins [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: maandag 9 februari 2009 11:45
To: Maarten Vissers; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [mpls-tp] MPLS-TP MS-PW an optional layer?

Maarten,

Ben