GMPLS topics and issues of study

["Richard Rabbat" <rabbat@fla.fujitsu.com>]

Title: Message

Hi all,

 

Based on Isocore interoperability testing results from the past few months,  we've found the following issues to have caused some confusion and differences in implementation.  We'll list them here in no specific order under 3 major headings.

 

Addressing:
1. relationship between TE Router ID and OSPF router ID
1.1 where to use TE Router ID, OSPF Router ID and IPCC Address

 

2: IP reachability (what ID's are reachable IP addresses)

 

3: what address is used in the signaling message in the ERO/RRO

 

4: what is used in in the IF_ID_RSVP_HOP
4.1: IP v4 Next/Previous Hop address
4.2: IPv4 address in the value field

 

5:  what is used in the destination IPv4 address in the session object

 

6:  what is used in the sender IPv4 address in sender object template

 

7:  what is used as the Router ID in LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID

 

RSVP message contents:

 

1: ERO/RRO: choice of outgoing vs. incoming interface ID

 

2: Forwarding destination of Path message with ERO

 

Control channel:

 

1: Best practice where multiple IP hops lie between adjacent nodes

 

2: use of redundant/multiple IPCC. best practices
 
We're in the process of putting together what we hope to be a comprehensive list of topics that may cause interop concerns. If people have thoughts about other concerns as well, it would be great if you can email them to the list or contact us directly.

 

Yumiko Kawashima
Ashok Narayanan
Eiji Oki
Lyndon Ong
Vijay Pandian
Rajiv Papneja  
Richard Rabbat
Hari Rakotoranto
Kohei Shiomoto
Tomonori Takeda