FW: Label Set and Suggested Label

["Vishal Sharma" <vsharma87@yahoo.com>]

Manoj,

While some of the questions you raise are valid, there were at
least a couple that seem contradictory, and didn't seem to be
stated clearly enough for one to respond to them.

Anyway, here are some thoughts.

>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org]On
>Behalf Of manoj juneja
>Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 7:33 PM
>To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
>Subject: Label Set and Suggested Label
>
>
>Hi All,
>        The GMPLS drafts specify the use of suggested label and label
>set in a very generic way. These are not mentioned based on specific
>technology.
>
>The following question comes to mind while reading the draft.
>
>Whether the suggested label and label set are going to be used in
>SDH/SONET
>?

The suggested label and label set are provided for use by all
of the technologies that GMPLS covers (packet, TDM, lambda, fiber).
So, yes, they *can* be used by SDH/SONET. Whether a particular
vendor will "use" them, and whether a particular carrier will
turn them on, even if the vendor code incorporates them, will
depend on the specific vendor or carrier.

So, strictly speaking, the answer to whether they *are* going
to be used is "it depends on the vendor or carrier."

>The OIF's O-UNI v 1.0 is applicable for establishing SDH/SONET LSPs. They
>don't use the suggested label at all. Regarding the usage of label set, it
>mentions that if a node wants the upstream and downstream labels
>to be same
>in both the directions then the upstream label should be included in the
>label set. Is GMPLS looking for the this type of usage for label set in
>SDH/SONET LSPs ?

Again, the type of usage outlined in the OIF-UNI is one way in
which the label set may be used. The GMPLS documents, as they
stand, do not mandate or restrict how the label set should
be used.

Your question is quite unclear here. If you mean "can this be a possible
usage for label set in GMPLS" the answer is "yes." If you mean
"is this the only usage for label set in GMPLS for SDH/SONET", the answer
is "no."

>Can I have a action field indicating range (include/exclude) in label set
>for SDH/SONET LSPs ?


This is another one of the confusing questions. Do you mean
can you use the "Action" field specified for the label set
when using the label set with SDH/SONET labels?
Well, yes. The label set format is common to all technologies,
and was designed so that its features were such that all
technologies (including SDH/SONET) covered by GMPLS could
use them.
So unless I'm missing something, I don't see the point of confusion
here.

>What is the reason for including the SDH/SONET list of labels
>(include/exclude) for SDH/SONET LSPs ?

Again, not clear in the light of the previous question. Based
on your previous question, I would surmise that you had some
need to actually use the "Action" and range concepts for SDH/SONET
and simply need to verify whether they could be used with SDH/SONET.
In that case, you should already have an application in mind.

A very simple application for specifying a range might be when
an upstream node wishes to use some form of concatenation to bind
certain SDH/SONET channels together, and wishes to inform the
downstream node of the specific channels to be bound.

>I can understand the usage of suggested label/label set on LSC interfaces.
>
>Please don't give answers like GMPLS is a generic framework and O-UNI is a
>sub-set of GMPLS or label set/suggested label is a carrier requirement.


Please, also invest some time and thought in framing your questions
more clearly.
This will go a long way in enabling people to answer them.

Thanks,
-Vishal