AW: Lambda LSP Forwarding Adjacency Doubt

["Juergen Heiles" <juergen.heiles@icn.siemens.de>]

For a TDM service you have to consider the specific signal format, for
example SDH or G.709 ODU.
I ncase of SDH each LSP (e.g. VC-4, VC-12) has a unique SUKLM numbering in
the lable in additon to the interface ID. If nodes A and D include TDM and
lambda switches the STM-N signal is no longer a interface (instead the WDM
signal is the interface), so I would assume that the ID of the lambda FA-LSP
replaces the interface ID.

Juergen

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: manoj juneja [mailto:manojkumarjuneja@hotmail.com]
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 5. Dezember 2001 00:24
> An: D.Basak@Accelight.com
> Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Betreff: RE: Lambda LSP Forwarding Adjacency Doubt
>
>
> Hi Debashis,
>             In my example, A and D nodes are TDM and lambda switch
> capable but nodes B and C are lambda switch capable. I want to tunnel
> TDM LSP through the lambda LSP (established earlier and
> advertised as a
> FA). My question was how the label allocation be done at node
> D ? Is it
> that for all the incoming TDM LSPs requests that need to be tunneled
> through same lambda FA-LSP be assigned the same label at node D and
> sent bck to node A in RESV message ? If no, then how to assign the
> different labels to different LSPs that are to be tunneled through the
> same lambda FA-LSP.
>
> I think u are describing the case of how to tunnel LOVC LSP
> in HOVC LSP
> (HOVC LSP advertised as FA).
>
> Regards,
> manoj.
>
>
> >From: "Basak, Debashis" <D.Basak@Accelight.com>
> >To: 'manoj juneja' <manojkumarjuneja@hotmail.com>
> >CC: "'ccamp@ops.ietf.org'" <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
> >Subject: RE: Lambda LSP Forwarding Adjacency Doubt
> >Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 17:55:26 -0500
> >
> >Manoj,
> >
> >The end points of the lambdapath in your example, nodes A to
> D, are capable
> >of  establishing TDM services through it. Its probably
> better referred as a
> >TDM-FA, basically you have created a new TDM link between A
> and D. For
> >establishing TDM services on the new link, A and D in your
> example should
> >have a signaling peer relationship setup for the link.
> Further TDM services
> >would be set up as you would over any TDM link, by
> exchanging TDM labels.
> >
> >-Debashis
> >
> >Accelight Networks
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: manoj juneja [mailto:manojkumarjuneja@hotmail.com]
> >Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 3:24 PM
> >To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> >Subject: Lambda LSP Forwarding Adjacency Doubt
> >
> >
> >Hi All,
> >          If there are 4 nodes say A, B, C and D. There is a
> Lambda FA
> >established from A to D and if a new TDM LSP request comes to node A
> >which is to be tunneled through the already established lambda FA-LSP
> >then the node A sends the Path/label request message directly to node
> >D. What label the node D will send back to node A in the RESV/label
> >mapping message since the FA-LSP is just one label (lambda) ? Does it
> >mean that all the LSPs which are tunneled through the lambda FA-LSP
> >will be allocated the same label by node D to node A ?
> >
> >Please help.
> >
> >Regards,
> >manoj.
> >
> >_________________________________________________________________
> >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
>
>