Subject: Re: [mpls-tp] Comments on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers-01

From: George Swallow <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 16:48:46 -0400

Mach -

On 6/21/10 11:47 PM, "Mach Chen" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi authors,
> 
> Here are some comments:
> 
> 1. In the draft, the Source/Destination Node is defined as a 32-bits ID, but
> for a MPLS/GMPLS TE based LSP, the Tunnel Extended ID, Tunnel end point
> address and Tunnel sender address may be IPv6 addresses, it seems that the
> "mapping to GMPLS signaling" (Section 5.3) can not handle this.

I was thinking that for IPv6 we could use the embedded IPv4 format:

0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:Node-ID.

Of course there are other ways of handling this.  We *could* define new
session, sender-template, and filter-spec objects that are specifically
defined as MPLS-TP node-IDs.

> 2. In your draft, an LSP is identified by the combination of Src-Global_ID,
> Src-Node_ID, Src-Tunnel_Num, Dst-Global_ID, Dst-Node_ID, Dst-Tunnel_Num,
> LSP_Num, this is fine for unidirectional and co-routed bidirectional LSP,
> but it is not enough for associated bidirectional LSP that is combined with
> two reverse unidirectional LSPs and IMHO two LSP_Nums are required.

We should discuss this (and the above if you like) in Maastricht.

...George

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