Subject: [mpls] R: RE: R: Re: Mixing ICC and Global-IDs in MPLS-TP Identifiers?

From: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 May 2011 19:30:11 +0200 (CEST)

Let me try to understand your point.

The draft has a major issue that has been identified (together wtih a proposed 
resolution) more than one year ago.

The MPLS WG did not reach agreement to resolve the issue as proposed without 
any technical justification. Therefore the MPLS WG will progress an incorrect 
document.

This is what I can understand from your reply.

----Messaggio originale----
Da: [email-masked]
Data: 20-mag-2011 18.16
A: "[email-masked]"<[email-masked]>, 
"[email-masked]"<[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]"<[email-masked]>
Ogg: RE: [mpls] R: Re: Mixing ICC and Global-IDs in MPLS-TP Identifiers?

Never-the-less, the decision is clearly traceable to the fact that there isno 
consensus to change. A number of SDOs require this.  The reason is obvious: it 
is always truethat one can construct an argument to change the direction of 
work inprogress, and - if we allowed each such argument to cause a change inthe 
direction of the work in progress - we would never make progress. Hence there 
must be agreement to change, not simply arguments thatsupport it.
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of 
[email-masked]
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 4:54 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: [mpls] R: Re: Mixing ICC and Global-IDs in MPLS-TP Identifiers?

I am a bit surprised by the decision to cut such an important discussion.
 
While it is true that there is no (yet?) agreement on mixing of Global-IDs and 
ICC’s, the discussion has clarified that there are major holes both in the 
Requirements RFC (at least RFC5680) as well as in this document (which also do 
not fullfill the incomplete set of requirements of RFC5680).
One of the argument against the proposal was the lack of requirements for 
supporting inter-domain LSP/PW. However, during the discussion it appeared that 
this scenario is required by RFC5680. As the draft in its current form does not 
address this scenario, it is clearly not fullfilling the requirements of 
RFC5680,
 
There are other related issues which I am going to raise by replying to some 
mails on this thread.
----Messaggio originale----
Da: [email-masked]
Data: 18-mag-2011 20.40
A: "[email-masked]"<[email-masked]>
Ogg: Re: [mpls] Mixing ICC and Global-IDs in MPLS-TP Identifiers?

After discussion on the MPLS WG email list, there is no consensus to change 
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers to allow mixing of Global-IDs and ICC’s for the 
same Tunnel, LSP, PW, or Section. Instead, the (admittedly rough) consensus is 
to leave the document as currently defined. The authors are therefore 
instructed to continue progression of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers without a 
change in this area.
 
This decision neither supports nor precludes the possibility that at some 
point in the future, after draft-ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers is approved and 
published as an RFC, the WG might consider additional work to extend the MPLS 
protocols to allow mixed identifiers. 
 
Thanks,
Ross and Loa (as MPLS WG chairs)
 
[Note that since George is co-author of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers, for 
this one document he is recused from his role as WG co-chair.]

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of George 
Swallow
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2011 5:17 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [mpls] Mixing ICC and Global-IDs in MPLS-TP Identifiers?
 
All -

Many of the comments received from the ITU on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers-
04 have to do with the Global and ICC identifiers.

The identifiers for Tunnel, LSP, PW, and MEG include fields to identify each 
end of an LSP.  Currently the draft allows a Tunnel, LSP, PW, or MEG to use 
either the Global-ID for both ends or or the ICC for both ends.  Mixed use is 
not permitted.

The ITU liaison requests that we allow mixed use.

The authors of the draft are very reluctant to do this.  
Obtaining an AS Number (from which the Global-ID is derived) is a fairly 
trivial procedure.  Many organizations if not most already have AS Numbers. 
Such an addition will add numerous object formats, and test cases. The extent 
inter-provider MPLS-TP is as yet unknown.  If mixed modes of ICC and Global-ID 
identification is required, they can be added later. For signaled connections, 
there is no plan to allow routing based on either the Global-ID or ICC.  That 
would be a radical change to how IP works.  However for IP routing to work (in 
order to forward the signaling messages), the providers involved will need to 
run BGP and have AS numbers. 
We are looking for input/consensus from the WG.

George, Eric, & Matthew