[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ Àüüȸ½Å ] spc connections
Dimitri -
Response inline...
Jonathan Sadler
Dimitri Papadimitriou wrote:
> reading your mail, the following came to my mind:
>
> - does it mean that G.7713.2/RFC 3474 requires to setup
> a call when (or before) establishing an SPC ?
G.8080 requires that a call be established for SPCs (soft permanent connections) as well as SC (switched connections). G.7713 and G.7713.2 follow this requirement.
> - G.7713.2/RFC 3474 can not support inter-as *te* ?
I'm not certain how to parse your question -- could you please clarify?
> thanks,
> - dimitri.
>
> > --------------1FF6DF901322C8C0DC51EC75
> > Content-Type: text/plain;
> > charset="iso-8859-1"
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> >
> > Hi Young -
> >
> > While the name of the "GENERALIZED_UNI" object seems to refer to the UNI
> > reference point, the purpose of the object is to carry attributes of a
> > call. G.8080 states that SPCs still use Network Call Controllers (NCCs)
> > in the process of setting up the SPC. Consequently, a call exists even
> > for SPCs. Therefore, carrying attributes of a call is independent of
> > whether the call was requested across a UNI or from a management system
> > (ie. an SPC). I agree that the name of the object is somewhat
> > misleading, but it comes from the fact that G.7713.2 attempted to reuse
> > existing RSVP extensions as much as possible. (The name of this Call
> > object came from the OIF UNI 1.0 IA)
> >
> > The identification of the egress point in a carriers network to which an
> > SPC is to be delivered is also a Call attribute, not a connection
> > attribute -- it is independent of how a customer's service request is
> > realized acrossed a service provider's network. However, the ERO is an
> > attribute of a connection, not a call, and may not necessarily be passed
> > over the E-NNI reference point. Consequently, the use of explicit label
> > control in an ERO is not a possible way to handle SPCs that traverse an
> > E-NNI. This is why the egress point identification appears in the call
> > object in G.7713.2.
> >
> > I hope this helps clarify SPC operations in G.7713.2/RFC 3474.
> >
> > Jonathan Sadler
> >
> > yhwkim@etri.re.kr wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > In my understanding, for the support of SPC connection, SPC_LABEL
> > > (Type=4, Sub-type=2)
> > > subobject seems to be included in GENERALIZED_UNI object.
> > > If my understanding is correct, I think there is a big ifference
> > > between concept of SPC connection and GENERALIZED_UNI object. SPC
> > > connection is NNI portion, not UNI.
> > >
> > > As it is, GENERALIZED_UNI object describes originating and terminating
> > > UNI aspects between client and network nodes.
> > > From logical view-point, in addition, the difference between switched
> > > connection (SC) and soft permanent connection (SPC) is where call and
> > > connection initiation is. In case of SC the initiation is of client
> > > node, but in case of SPC the initiation is of network node (of course,
> > > triggered by NMS). As a result, I think that GENERALIZED_UNI object
> > > and SPC connection could not be indicated by using the object, called
> > > GENERALIZED_UNI object because these are completely different by
> > > nature.
> > >
> > > What do you think of my opinion?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Young
> > >
> > > ¿øº» ³»¿ë:
> > >
> > > º¸³½»ç¶÷: Adrian Farrel[adrian@olddog.co.uk]
> > > ¹Þ´Â»ç¶÷: Ong, Lyndon
> > > ÂüÁ¶:'Kireeti Kompella'; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> > > Á¦¸ñ: spc connections
> > > ¹ÞÀº³¯Â¥: 2003/11/13 ¸ñ 06:57
> > >
> > >
> > > Lyndon,
> > > Thank you for raising this. There is certainly a lack of clarity in
> > > 3473 in this regard,
> > > which is perhaps unfortunate.
> > > In the earlier versions of the GMPLS work, this was made very explicit
> > > (sic) because
> > > egress label control was invented before it was generalized to
> > > explicit label.
> > > There is some reference to this in RFC3471 (of course, the function
> > > was originally
> > > independent of signaling protocol), but no explicit procedures.
> > > This descriptive deficiency has been addressed in
> > > draft-ccamp-gmpls-overlay. There is no
> > > change in protocol to enable this function, merely a description of
> > > how it all works.
> > > Hope this helps.
> > > Cheers,
> > > Adrian
> > > =====================
> > >
> > > Hi Adrian,
> > > A couple of times now it's been suggested that Explicit Label Control
> > > is a way to
> > > do SPC connections instead of the SPC_Label sub-object. I'm wondering
> > > if
> > > people have a different model of SPC connections in mind. The
> > > procedures in
> > > RFC 3473 for Explicit Label Control are as follows:
> > > [when a label sub-object is present] If the U-bit of the
> > > subobject being examined is clear (0), then value of the label is
> > > copied into a new Label_Set object. This Label_Set object MUST be
> > > included on the corresponding outgoing Path message.
> > > If the U-bit of the subobject being examined is set (1), then value
> > >
> > > of the label is label to be used for upstream traffic associated
> > > with
> > > the bidirectional LSP.
> > > Neither of these would seem to help you for SPC, since there is no
> > > outgoing PATH
> > > message at the network endpoint, the endpoint call control is handled
> > > by
> > > the management system and not using a UNI or overlay interface (at
> > > least
> > > as defined in G.8080).
> > > Explicit Label Control seems like it would help you control the label
> > > assignment
> > > within the signaled portion of a connection.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Lyndon
> >
> >
> >
> > -----------------------------------------
> > ============================================================
> > The information contained in this message may be privileged
> > and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the
> > reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an
> > employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to
> > the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
> > reproduction, dissemination or distribution of this
> > communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received
> > this communication in error, please notify us immediately by
> > replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.
> >
> > Thank you.
> > Tellabs
> > ============================================================
> > --------------1FF6DF901322C8C0DC51EC75
> > Content-Type: text/html;
> > charset="us-ascii"
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> >
> > <!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
> > <html>
> > Hi Young -
> > <p>While the name of the "GENERALIZED_UNI" object seems to refer to the
> > UNI reference point, the purpose of the object is to carry attributes of
> > a call. G.8080 states that SPCs still use Network Call Controllers
> > (NCCs) in the process of setting up the SPC. Consequently, a call
> > exists even for SPCs. Therefore, carrying attributes of a call is
> > independent of whether the call was requested across a UNI or from a management
> > system (ie. an SPC). I agree that the name of the object is somewhat misleading,
> > but it comes from the fact that G.7713.2 attempted to reuse existing RSVP
> > extensions as much as possible. (The name of this Call object came
> > from the OIF UNI 1.0 IA)
> > <p>The identification of the egress point in a carriers network to which
> > an SPC is to be delivered is also a Call attribute, not a connection attribute
> > -- it is independent of how a customer's service request is realized acrossed
> > a service provider's network. However, the ERO is an attribute of a connection,
> > not a call, and may not necessarily be passed over the E-NNI reference
> > point. Consequently, the use of explicit label control in an ERO
> > is not a possible way to handle SPCs that traverse an E-NNI. This
> > is why the egress point identification appears in the call object in G.7713.2.
> > <p>I hope this helps clarify SPC operations in G.7713.2/RFC 3474.
> > <p>Jonathan Sadler
> > <p>yhwkim@etri.re.kr wrote:
> > <blockquote TYPE=CITE><font size=-1>Hi,</font>
> > <p><font size=-1>In my understanding, for the support of SPC connection,
> > SPC_LABEL (Type=4, Sub-type=2)</font>
> > <br><font size=-1>subobject seems to be included in GENERALIZED_UNI object.</font>
> > <br><font size=-1>If my understanding is correct, I think there is a big
> > ifference between concept of SPC connection and GENERALIZED_UNI object.
> > SPC connection is NNI portion, not UNI.</font>
> > <p><font size=-1>As it is, GENERALIZED_UNI object describes originating
> > and terminating UNI aspects between client and network nodes.</font>
> > <br><font size=-1>From logical view-point, in addition, the difference
> > between switched connection (SC) and soft permanent connection (SPC) is
> > where call and connection initiation is. In case of SC the initiation is
> > of client node, but in case of SPC the initiation is of network node (of
> > course, triggered by NMS). As a result, I think that GENERALIZED_UNI object
> > and SPC connection could not be indicated by using the object, called GENERALIZED_UNI
> > object because these are completely different by nature.</font>
> > <p><font size=-1>What do you think of my opinion?</font>
> > <p><font size=-1>Thanks,</font>
> > <br><font size=-1>Young</font>
> > <p><font size=-1>¿øº» ³»¿ë:</font>
> > <p><font size=-1>º¸³½»ç¶÷:
> > Adrian Farrel[adrian@olddog.co.uk]</font>
> > <br><font size=-1>¹Þ´Â»ç¶÷:
> > Ong, Lyndon</font>
> > <br><font size=-1>ÂüÁ¶:'Kireeti Kompella'; ccamp@ops.ietf.org</font>
> > <br><font size=-1>Á¦¸ñ: spc connections</font>
> > <br><font size=-1>¹ÞÀº³¯Â¥:
> > 2003/11/13 ¸ñ 06:57</font>
> > <br>
> > <p><font size=-1>Lyndon,</font>
> > <br><font size=-1>Thank you for raising this. There is certainly a lack
> > of clarity in 3473 in this regard,</font>
> > <br><font size=-1>which is perhaps unfortunate.</font>
> > <br><font size=-1>In the earlier versions of the GMPLS work, this was made
> > very explicit (sic) because</font>
> > <br><font size=-1>egress label control was invented before it was generalized
> > to explicit label.</font>
> > <br><font size=-1>There is some reference to this in RFC3471 (of course,
> > the function was originally</font>
> > <br><font size=-1>independent of signaling protocol), but no explicit procedures.</font>
> > <br><font size=-1>This descriptive deficiency has been addressed in draft-ccamp-gmpls-overlay.
> > There is no</font>
> > <br><font size=-1>change in protocol to enable this function, merely a
> > description of how it all works.</font>
> > <br><font size=-1>Hope this helps.</font>
> > <br><font size=-1>Cheers,</font>
> > <br><font size=-1>Adrian</font>
> > <br><font size=-1>=====================</font>
> > <p><font size=-1>Hi Adrian,</font>
> > <br><font size=-1>A couple of times now it's been suggested that Explicit
> > Label Control is a way to</font>
> > <br><font size=-1>do SPC connections instead of the SPC_Label sub-object.
> > I'm wondering if</font>
> > <br><font size=-1>people have a different model of SPC connections in mind.
> > The procedures in</font>
> > <br><font size=-1>RFC 3473 for Explicit Label Control are as follows:</font>
> > <br><font size=-1> [when a label sub-object is present]
> > If the U-bit of the</font>
> > <br><font size=-1> subobject being examined is clear (0), then
> > value of the label is</font>
> > <br><font size=-1> copied into a new Label_Set object.
> > This Label_Set object MUST be</font>
> > <br><font size=-1> included on the corresponding outgoing Path
> > message.</font>
> > <br><font size=-1> If the U-bit of the subobject being examined
> > is set (1), then value</font>
> > <br><font size=-1> of the label is label to be used for upstream
> > traffic associated with</font>
> > <br><font size=-1> the bidirectional LSP.</font>
> > <br><font size=-1>Neither of these would seem to help you for SPC, since
> > there is no outgoing PATH</font>
> > <br><font size=-1>message at the network endpoint, the endpoint call control
> > is handled by</font>
> > <br><font size=-1>the management system and not using a UNI or overlay
> > interface (at least</font>
> > <br><font size=-1>as defined in G.8080).</font>
> > <br><font size=-1>Explicit Label Control seems like it would help you control
> > the label assignment</font>
> > <br><font size=-1>within the signaled portion of a connection.</font>
> > <p><font size=-1>Cheers,</font>
> > <br><font size=-1>Lyndon</font></blockquote>
> > </html>
> >
> > <HTML><BODY><P><hr size=1></P><P><STRONG>============================================================<br>The information contained in this message may be privileged <br>and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the <br>reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an <br>employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to <br>the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any <br>reproduction, dissemination or distribution of this <br>communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received <br>this communication in error, please notify us immediately by <br>replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.<br><br>Thank you.<br>Tellabs<br>============================================================</STRONG></P></BODY></HTML>
> > --------------1FF6DF901322C8C0DC51EC75--
> >
> >
> >
-----------------------------------------
============================================================
The information contained in this message may be privileged
and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an
employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
reproduction, dissemination or distribution of this
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received
this communication in error, please notify us immediately by
replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.
Thank you.
Tellabs
============================================================