RE: Fwd: Comments on GMPLS signalling drafts

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

Hi Vishal,
           Thanks a lot for the clarifications. John Drake mentioned in one 
of his responses that a LSC FA-LSP can be advertised in routing
with different switching type (i.e. TDM). It means an FA can be
advertised using switching type that is different from the switching
type of the LSP that created the FA. I don't think this is mentioned
in any of the drafts. Please let me know if I m missing something.

Following was my main concern :

A LSP that is established with switching type say X (X=PSC/LSC/FSC/TDM)
and advertised as a FA with different switching type say Y (X != Y)
then what all the possible combinatios of X and Y ?


Regards,
manoj.


>From: "Vishal Sharma" <vsharma87@yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: <v.sharma@ieee.org>
>To: "manoj juneja" <manojkumarjuneja@hotmail.com>, <lberger@movaz.com>
>CC: <Eric.Mannie@ebone.com>, <dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be>, 
><ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
>Subject: RE: Fwd: Comments on GMPLS signalling drafts
>Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 10:10:55 -0800
>
>Manoj,
>
>I just got to my email after a hiatus, and saw your question on
>tunnelling at the end of this email (I've deleted all the rest).
>Since there seems to have been much debate on this, and you
>brought it up yet again, I thought it appropriate to answer.
>
>Actually, I don't understand where the confusion is. I think John Drake
>already answered this question, both in his reply directly to you,
>and again, in his observations on Juergen's email (the one where
>Juergen tried to explain his understanding of FA's etc.).
>
>The basic answer is that the lambda LSP will be advertised in routing,
>and stored in the TED at A and D, as a TDM-capable FA LSP.
>From that point forward, nodes A and D will exchange TDM labels for
>any TDM LSP being setup over this FA LSP(those labels will of course
>follow all the layering rules that Maarten and Juergen have been
>talking about, and the label requests themselves will be tunnelled
>directly from A to D; for example, over the SONET/SDH section or line
>DCC). In fact, one could view this FA LSP as a "one-hop"
>TDM link, with all the properties of a TDM link.
>
>More specifically, all TDM LSPs tunneled through the
>FA LSP will *not* be allocated the same label (this is a physical
>impossibility in a circuit switched network in any case). Rather,
>they will each be allocated a label that denotes the time slots
>on the FA LSP (now viewed as TDM capable) that each TDM LSP will
>use.
>
>(BTW, you might also find a presentation
>I gave at MPLSCon'01 in March this year on this very subject useful to
>clarify some of your doubts (there are some pictures there that
>are useful for visualizing these scenarios).)
>
>Finally, I saw in one of your earlier emails on this subject a request,
>which seemed to boil down to asking that every possible scenario
>be outlined in some document or the other. While, in general, I am
>supportive of making things clear (and I've expressed that viewpoint
>several times on this list and the MPLS list over the past couple years),
>in this particular case, I think you might be asking for too much!
>Doing that is practically impossible.
>
>Once the building blocks are specified (and I support that they be
>specified as clearly as possible), the compositions of these blocks
>is something that has to be done depending on the specific applications
>that one intends to use these blocks for.
>
>-Vishal
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org]On
>Behalf Of manoj juneja
>Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 3:33 PM
>To: lberger@movaz.com
>Cc: Eric.Mannie@ebone.com; dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be;
>ccamp@ops.ietf.org
>Subject: Re: Fwd: Comments on GMPLS signalling drafts
>
>
>Hi Lou/Eric/Dimitri,
>
>   Please see the following para from gmpls-architecture draft :
>
><snip>
>
> >From: Lou Berger <lberger@movaz.com>
> >To: "manoj juneja" <manojkumarjuneja@hotmail.com>
> >CC: <Eric.Mannie@ebone.com>,<dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be>,
> ><ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
> >Subject: Re: Fwd: Comments on GMPLS signalling drafts
> >Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 15:18:34 -0500
> >
> >see comments inline.
> >
> >At 09:10 PM 12/13/2001, manoj juneja wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> >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 ?
> >> >
>
><<snip>>
>
> >> >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."
> >
> >I believe this topic is being covered in other threads.
> >
>
>


_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx