Fwd: Comments on GMPLS signalling drafts

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

>From: "manoj juneja" <manojkumarjuneja@hotmail.com>
>To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
>Subject: Comments on GMPLS signalling drafts
>Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 16:15:10 -0700
>
>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
>
>


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