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

From: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2011 23:54:55 +0200 (CEST)

Forwarding the messate to the MPLS WG mailing list ...

----Messaggio originale----
Da: [email-masked]
Data: 2-mag-2011 23.43
A: <[email-masked]>
Ogg: R: Re: [mpls] Mixing ICC and Global-IDs in MPLS-TP Identifiers?

Where this work has to be done?
 
What are the specific issues that need further understanding?
 
The ITU-T LS provides a solution: what are the technical issues with the ITU-T 
proposal?

----Messaggio originale----
Da: [email-masked]
Data: 27-apr-2011 7.43
A: <[email-masked]>, "George Swallow"<[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Ogg: Re: [mpls] Mixing ICC and Global-IDs in MPLS-TP Identifiers?

Hi,
I think such mixing environment requires more study. We need to better 
understand the applicability and the implications on all components and 
planes…
When such a mixing environment is completely analyzed and understood, if 
needed can be added in a later phase. 
IMO, in the meantime the document should both ICC OR IP environments, with no 
mixing identifiers. 
Best regards,
Nurit
 
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of ext 
[email-masked]
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 7:05 AM
To: George Swallow
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [mpls] Mixing ICC and Global-IDs in MPLS-TP Identifiers?

George, 

I do not agree the proposed resolution of this comment.  As stated in the 
draft allows an operator can select the use of either Global (IP) or ICC based 
identifiers.  Insisting that both ends of a LSP or PW must use the same scheme 
removes the freedom to select the between ICC and Global (IP) identifiers. 

MPLS-TP requires that the data plane and control plane are independent, 
including having independent identifiers.  The draft describes the mapping 
between the GMPLS identifiers used by the control plane and the data plane 
identifiers. 

>From the perspective of the data plane an identifier is inserted at the source 
and received by the sink.  Neither the source or sink need to understand the 
semantics of the identifier, all a sink needs to, for example, to verify 
connectivity is to check that the received identifier string matches the 
expected identifier string. 

Please see in-line below. 

Regards, 

Malcolm 

George Swallow <[email-masked]> 
Sent by: [email-masked] 
25/04/2011 05:16 PM 
To
<[email-masked]> 
cc
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.  

1.        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. 
[MB] Many organizations already have process in place to use ICC based 
identifiers for the data plane changing to IP based identifiers would be a 
major burden. 
2.        Such an addition will add numerous object formats, and test cases. 
[MB]  Why - the data plane does not need to interpret the string, just check 
that it matches the expected string 
3.        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. 
[MB]  This would be a major roadblock to the use of MPLS-TP in an inter 
provider transport network 
4.        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. 
[MB] The control plane identifiers must be independent of the data plane 
identifiers. 

We are looking for input/consensus from the WG.

George, Eric, & Matthew _______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls