Subject: [mpls-tp] Query regarding ICC based identification: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers

From: Mukund Mani <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 12:06:37 +0530

Hi

The "draft-ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers" mention two forms of operator
identification - Global_ID (for IP operational practice) and ICC (compatible
with ITU).

All the sections on identifiers further in the draft, mention the globally
unique format of the identifiers by pre-pending the Global_ID. i.e they
mention only the IP based identifiers.

Eg; For LSP Identiffication:

"Src-Global_ID::Src-Node_ID::Src-Tunnel_Num::
Dst-Global_ID::Dst-Node_ID::Dst-Tunnel_Num::LSP_Num"

Shouldnt the draft be mentioning the ICC based identification also
(substituting Global_ID by ICC for ICC based LSP Identifiers) or mentioning
explicitly in the draft as follows:

"
Src-Operator_ID::Src-Node_ID::Src-Tunnel_Num::Dst-Operator_ID::Dst-Node_ID::Dst-Tunnel_Num::LSP_Num
"

Where Operator_ID can be Global_ID or ICC_ID

Or is it expected that for ICC based identification, different set
of identifiers will be defined similar to the MEG & MEP Identifiers??

Could the draft authors please clarify the same...

With Regards

Mukund

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 07:59:53 +0100

Good question....I'd like to add a sub-question to this:
 
Case A:  Sublayering implies nested LSPs that belong to the *same* layer
network, ie they are in a common routing instance and bounded by a
common set of access points.
 
Case B:  Layering implies nested LSPs that belong to *different* layer
networks, ie they are in different routing instances and bounded by
different sets of access points (in each disjoint layer network).
 
Note - Case A is traditional MPLS behaviour whereas case B is what
*should* be done in a proper transport network, ie a transport network
should not have traditional MPLS LSP sublayering but be based on
client/server relationships between nested LSPs.
 
So......
 
1    What does an LSP access point address look like in each of the 2
cases of sublayering and layering noted above?
 
2    In case A then all of the sublayer access points must belong to
same addressing format  (ie either all Global_ID-based or all ICC-based
but they cannot be mixed - but we still have the issue of
differentiating layering from sublayering as noted in 1 above), whereas
in case B they do not have to belong to the same addressing format (ie
one (server or client) LSP may use the Global_ID format whereas another
(client or server) LSP may use the ICC format).  So can the authors
please comment as to whether what I have just described is allowed?
 
regards, Neil

________________________________

	From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
On Behalf Of Mukund Mani
	Sent: 28 May 2010 07:37
	To: [email-masked]
	Subject: [mpls-tp] Query regarding ICC based
identification:draft-ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers

	Hi
	 
	The "draft-ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers" mention two forms of
operator identification - Global_ID (for IP operational practice) and
ICC (compatible with ITU).

	All the sections on identifiers further in the draft, mention
the globally unique format of the identifiers by pre-pending the
Global_ID. i.e they mention only the IP based identifiers. 

	Shouldnt the draft be mentioning the ICC based identification
also (substituting Global_ID by ICC for ICC based LSP Identifiers) or
mentioning explicitly in the draft as follows:

"Src-Operator_ID::Src-Node_ID::Src-Tunnel_Num::Dst-Operator_ID::Dst-Node
_ID::Dst-Tunnel_Num::LSP_Num"

	Or is it expected that for ICC based identification, different
set of identifiers will be defined similar to the MEG & MEP
Identifiers??

	With Regards

	Mukund