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

From: Mukund Mani <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 14:33:07 +0530

Hi

Could the draft authors please clarify the questions mentioned below??

With Regards
Mukund

On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 12:29 PM, <[email-masked]> wrote:

>  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.
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>