Comments on GMPLS signalling drafts

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

Hi All,

1. SE-style supported by GMPLS or not ?
As labels are the resources on the link, one can't allocate different
label to different senders in the same RSVP session.

2. Bandwidth modification for TDM, LSC and FSC LSPs. There is a
separate draft for TDM LSP bandwidth modification but what about the
bandwidth modification for other types of LSPs ? There is no mention of
these in any of the GMPLS drafts.

3. It should be mentioned clearly that waveband section is still not
complete in the drafts.

4. For IF_ID_RSVP_HOP object, there are couple of TLVs defined. What
about the Component_If_Id_Downstream/Upstream TLV ? The revised
bundling draft has removed these 2 TLVs. What about the GMPLS signalling
drafts ?

5. STM-0 label representation using {SUKLM} should be mentioned in the
drafts (because it is a special case).

6. It should be mentioned that bandwidth encoding parameter is useful
for what all type of LSPs i.e. TDM, LSC, FSC, PSC etc.

7. There is an example scenario for contention resolution in case of bi-
directional LSPs. It should be mentioned that  :

"contention resolution is an optimization, not a correctness issue ...
and no procedure can provide optimal resolution in all cases. An implementor 
may do differently to provide better resolution."

The above quotes are extracted from one of the mails from Fong Liaw.

If this is the case then this should be mentioned in the drafts.

8. The LSP hierarchy concept is still not clear. Some days back I posted one 
doubt related to tunneling of TDM LSP over Lambda LSP using the concept of 
forwarding adjacency and different people replied with different thoughts. 
Does this mean this concept is not standardized in GMPLS ?
My question was :

"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 ? If this type of
scenario can't exist in GMPLS then please let me know that too."


Regards,
manoj.




_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com