RE: Control Channel Doubt

[Fong Liaw <fliaw@zaffire.com>]

Hi, Manoj

>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: manoj juneja [mailto:manojkumarjuneja@hotmail.com]
>  Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 2:53 PM
>  To: saurabh@timetra.com; skatukam@cisco.com; ccamp@ops.ietf.org;
>  braja@tellium.com; kireeti@juniper.com
>  Subject: RE: Control Channel Doubt
>  
>  
>  Hi,
>       I think the original purpose of LIH in classical RSVP 
>  was somewhat

You are correct here. That's why RSVP_HOP3 object is introduced
in oif2000.125.5.

>  different. The latest draft of O-UNI (oif2000.125.5) has new
>  RSVP object RSVP_HOP3. This draft reccomends usage of 
>  RSVP_HOP3 object
>  instead of traditional RSVP_HOP object. This new object has 
>  been added
>  for the intention of non-associated signalling. The struture of
>  RSVP_HOP3 is  :
>  
>                {
>                    IPCC's Next/previous Hop
>                    LIH (control channel's LIH)
>                    TLVs.
>                }
>  
>  The TLVs in the above structure specify the interface for the data
>  flow. The TLVs can include maxmum of 2 interface Ids (viz. one for
>  forward direction of data flow and another for reverse direction of
>  data flow).
>  But I don't know whether this object will be equally applicable to
>  GMPLS or not. Whether GMPLS drafts are also going to include the
>  RSVP_HOP3 object in next revision ?

It is the intension to align both OIF and IETF in this aspect. 
The object actually comes from GMPLS authors. The format is 
not final yet as noted by OIF2000.125.5. The reason that
HOP3 even showed up in OIF2000.125.5 is to address comments
on using LIH in SuperComm test/interim agreement. 

Regards,
-Fong

>  
>  Authors of OIF draft, Bala, Kireeti etc. : Please clarify whether the
>  RSVP_HOP3 object has been kept with this intention only or there is
>  some other reason too.
>       
>  Regards,
>  manoj.
>  
>  >From: "Saurabh Shrivastava" <saurabh@timetra.com>
>  >Reply-To: <saurabh@timetra.com>
>  >To: "'manoj juneja'" <manojkumarjuneja@hotmail.com>, "Mpls 
>  \(E-mail\)" 
>  ><mpls@UU.NET>
>  >Subject: RE: Control Channel Doubt
>  >Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 13:00:03 -0700
>  >
>  >manoj,
>  >there is something called a LIH (logical interface
>  >handle) in the HOP Object in the PATH message - this
>  >shd be copied into the RESV, so that the receiver
>  >can know on which interface it shd make reservations
>  >even if it receives RESV on some other interface.
>  >-saurabh
>  >
>  >~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
>  >Saurabh Shrivastava          saurabh@timetra.com
>  >
>  >TiMetra Networks, Inc.       408.245.8796 (residence)
>  >http://www.timetra.com/      650.237.5154 (office)
>  >~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
>  >
>  >
>  ># -----Original Message-----
>  ># From: owner-mpls@UU.NET [mailto:owner-mpls@UU.NET]On 
>  Behalf Of manoj
>  ># juneja
>  ># Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 12:37 PM
>  ># To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; mpls@UU.NET
>  ># Subject: Control Channel Doubt
>  >#
>  >#
>  ># Hi All,
>  >#           Consider the following scenario :
>  >#
>  >#    If I have 2 nodes A and B connected by 3 links (viz. OC-3,
>  ># OC-192 and
>  ># OC-48). Furthermore, I have a out-of-fiber control 
>  channel running on
>  ># ethernet between these two nodes. Here, I am considering the
>  ># case of one
>  ># control channel for all the three data plane interfaces. When
>  ># an incoming
>  ># path message is received, how to identify for which incoming
>  ># data plane
>  ># interface this is for ? or Do I have to configure three
>  ># control channels
>  ># correspondng to each of the data plane interfaces ?
>  >#
>  ># Please clarify my doubt.
>  >#
>  ># Regards,
>  ># manoj.
>  >#
>  >#
>  >#
>  ># _________________________________________________________________
>  ># Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>  >#
>  
>  _________________________________________________________________
>  Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>  
>