lyndon
"Ong, Lyndon" <Lyong@Ciena.com>
Sent by: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
11/24/2004 20:16 EST
To: "'Igor Bryskin'" <ibryskin@movaz.com>, dpapadimitriou@psg.com, Dimitri PAPADIMITRIOU/BE/ALCATEL@ALCATEL
cc: Dimitri PAPADIMITRIOU/BE/ALCATEL@ALCATEL, ccamp@ops.ietf.org
bcc:
Subject: RE: RS-DT Wrap-Up Statements
Hi Igor,
I support you on both points, and I believe
Dimitri's writeup is intended to allow the
separation of routing and signaling controllers.
[dp] short reminder, this is the DT write-up
The issue of the router ID or link ID being
routable seems to be ingrained in 3477, at
the same time I am also uncomfortable about
this requirement, if the transport node
does not support PSC.
[dp] is RFC 3477 applicable to non-PSC - as of today yes
Cheers,
Lyndon
-----Original Message-----
From: Igor Bryskin [mailto:ibryskin@movaz.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 8:29 AM
To: dpapadimitriou@psg.com; dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be
Cc: dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: RS-DT Wrap-Up Statements
dimitri, see in-line
----- Original Message -----
From: "dimitri papadimitriou" <dpapadimitriou@psg.com>
To: "Igor Bryskin" <ibryskin@movaz.com>
Cc: <dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be> <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: RS-DT Wrap-Up Statements
> igor - see in-line:
>
> Igor Bryskin wrote:
>
> > Dimitri,
> >
> > Do you think it is reasonable/practical to separate routing controller
from
> > signaling controller and consider scenarios such as a single routing
> > controller manages (provides advertisements) for several transport nodes
> > with each of the latter having a dedicated signaling controller for TE
> > tunnel provisioning?
>
> this is a "functional" separation - in the basic association Si <-> Ri
> <-> i, we retrieve the canonical LSR (note i will change the word "can"
> by "may" in the below informational statement)
IB>> Separation could be physical, not just functional. Consider, for
instance, a transport network built of WXCs that do not have own control
plane. In this case a routing controller managing one or several such WXCs
could advertise their resources, while separate signaling controllers with
the help of PCE(s) could compute and signal TE paths for them.
>
> > Also, how in your opinion a signaling controller knows which address to
send
> > Path message for the next hop along the path.
> > Possible options:
> > a) ID of a numbered link is routable or RouterID in unnumbered ERO
> > sub-object (which is transport node ID) is routable;
>
> several points here:
> 1. we refer to a "TE Router_ID" per RFC 3477 recommendation
> 2. we should indicate these "identifiers" are TE reachable in the scope
> of the covered application
> 3. even if relevant the scope of this is related to routing
>
> > b) necessary binding (neighbor linkID=> neighbor signaling address,
neighbor
> > nodeID=> neighbor signaling address) is provided via LMP
>
> in the case of multiple association an additional information is
> required that falls beyond the scope of routing and that could be
> achieved using LMP
>
IB>> Personally, I don't like the assumption that transport node IDs and
linkIDs of numbered links are routable (especially in the context of non-PSC
networks) and prefer relying on LMP or some other neighbor auto--discovery
mechanism.
Igor
> hope this clarifies,
> - thanks.
>
> > Thanks,
> > Igor
> >
> >