Re: new rev of GMPLS signaling I-Ds

["manoj juneja" <manojkumarjuneja@hotmail.com>]

Hi Lou,
           I have gone through the 
draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-03.txt and 
draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-cr-ldp-02.txt drafts. I have certain 
clarifications on these drafts. Following are my doubts :

1. In draft "draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-03.txt", u mentioned that 
there will be a separate draft GMPLS-SONET for describing the technology 
specific details. U have removed just the TDM related details in that draft. 
The WDM specific label formats are still in the draft. Should not the 
waveband and lamda specific details and their label formats need to be in 
seprate draft like GMPLS-WDM. I mean to say why not put waveband label 
format in some other draft like GMPLS-WDM.

2.  It is mentioned in the draft that label set may be either restricted to 
a single hop or the whole LSP path. Can u please clarify that this decision 
should be based on what criteria or it is just a local node decision.

3. It is mentioned that LSP characteristics may be used by transit nodes 
e.g. to support PHP (section 3.1). Can u please explain how ? Is this case 
only possible in PSC ?

4. In section 3.1.1, it is written that lambda encoding type refers to 
switching of wavelengths. Does it also include the waveband ? Why there is 
not a separate LSP encoding type as waveband ? How does a transit node can 
identify that a waveband label is requested instead of a lambda label ?

5.  Are people more stressing on SDH/SONET in GMPLS area ?

6. In section 3.3.1, it is mentioned that waveband Id is selected by the 
sender and reused in all subsequent related messages. Can u please clarify 
that what are all those subsequent messages ?

7. In section 3.5, four different cases are explained where the label set 
concept may be useful. Can u please calrify the 4th case further ?

8. Is waveband Id locally signifcant i.e. between the two adjacent nodes or 
is it globally unique for whole LSP path ?

9. Can the generalized label TLV be present in Label Release/Withdraw 
messages ?

10. Is there any new draft coming on O-UNI ?

11. Is anybody defining the clear interworking on O-UNI and GMPLS ?

12. In section 5, it is mentioned that acceptable label set may be present 
in notification message to indicate what all labels are acceptable ? Can u 
please clarify what actions a node have to take once it receives the 
notification message with acceptable label set ?

Please help me in understanding these drafts.

Thanks,
manoj.



>From: Lou Berger <lberger@movaz.com>
>To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org,mpls@UU.NET
>Subject: new rev of GMPLS signaling I-Ds
>Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 17:12:17 -0400
>
>All,
>         It looks like the I-D folks are out (and not publishing) for a few
>days.  For those interested updated versions of the generalized signaling
>docs, they are available at:
>
>http://www.labn.net/docs/draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-03.txt
>http://www.labn.net/docs/draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-02.txt
>http://www.labn.net/docs/draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-cr-ldp-02.txt
>
>Per the last IETF, these drafts don't include SONET/SDH specifics.  A new
>draft covering the specifics will be published in a few days.
>
>Lou (and co-authors)
>
>>Subject: Autoreply from Internet Draft Submission Manager
>>From: ietfauto@ietf.org (Internet Draft Submission Manager)
>>
>>Hello,
>>
>>This message is being sent to acknowledge receipt of your submission
>>or message to internet-drafts@ietf.org
>>
>>The I-D administrator will be out of the office until Monday,
>>April 23rd. All submissions will be processed.
>>
>>Thank you. We appreciate your understanding and patience.
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com