Re: GMPLS Routing Drafts

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

Hi Sitaram,
            I do appreciate ur response. My question was totally
different. My main doubt is why should I need information of GMPLS
control channel network in GMPLS routing instance ? IMHO, the GMPLS
routing instance should be aware of data channel interfaces and not the
control channel interfaces (used for GMPLS control messages and not the
control channels used for OSPF routing advertisements) ?

Regards,
manoj.


>From: "S Kalipatnapu" <skalipat@starpower.net>
>To: "manoj juneja" <manojkumarjuneja@hotmail.com>, <kireeti@juniper.net>, 
><ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
>Subject: Re: GMPLS Routing Drafts
>Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 20:12:07 -0400
>
>Manoj,
>
>I am not sure, if I understand your question completely and Kireeti may 
>give
>a better answer, but if it helps, it may be noted that sub-IP routing
>instance uses control channels for advertising sub-IP domain reachability,
>while the IP routing instance advertises over the data channel forwarding
>adjacencies created by the GMPLS control plane.
>
>Cheers,
>--Sitaram
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "manoj juneja" <manojkumarjuneja@hotmail.com>
>To: <kireeti@juniper.net>; <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
>Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 5:01 PM
>Subject: Re: GMPLS Routing Drafts
>
>
> > Hi Kireeti,
> >             I have read the second last para of the draft. It
> > states "We call the interfaces over which regular routing adjacencies
> > are established "control channels". This definition restricts its scope
> > to routing adjacencies i.e. the control channels over which OSPF
> > control packets are going to be sent. Does this mean for sending the
> > GMPLS control messages, the same routing adjacencies are going to be
> > used ? If yes, then how to distinguish between the control channels
> > between two OSPF instances and GMPLS instances ? If no, then how this
> > GMPLS control channel information is transmitted in routing protocols ?
> >
> > Regards,
> > manoj.
> >
> >
> >
> > >From: Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>
> > >To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> > >Subject: Re: GMPLS Routing Drafts
> > >Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 12:26:44 -0700 (PDT)
> > >
> > >Hi Manoj,
> > >
> > > > In section 5.1 of Ist draft, it is mentioned
> > > > that "control channels are advertised into routing as normal links 
>as
> > > > mentioned in previous section". But in previous section of document 
>I,
> > > > there is no reference of control channels.
> > >
> > >Read the second last para of section 5.
> > >
> > > > Furthermore, in OSPF
> > > > extensions document (IInd draft), there is no mention of control
> > > > channels at all.
> > >
> > >Control channels are part of "regular" OSPF; the GMPLS OSPF draft
> > >deals with the formats of the GMPLS TE extensions.  As the abstract 
>says:
> > >
> > >    This document specifies encoding of extensions to the OSPF routing
> > >    protocol in support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
> > >    (GMPLS).  The description of the extensions is specified in [GMPLS-
> > >    ROUTING].
> > >
> > >BTW, since you have a penchant for pedantry, let me point out that
> > >it is inconsistent to call a "missing reference" (or a "no mention")
> > >an "inconsistency".
> > >
> > >On the other hand, we do appreciate your careful reading.
> > >
> > >Kireeti.
> > >
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at 
>http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
> >
> >
> >
>
>


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