Re: TR : I-D ACTION:draft-leroux-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-eval-00.txt

[dimitri papadimitriou <dpapadimitriou@psg.com>]

igor - i let to jl the opportunit to respond in much more in details but 
here below some hints:

> I have a couple of comments/suggestions.
>
> 1.	The draft says that currently GMPLS does not have a
> mechanism to provision virtual FAs. I don’t think this
> is correct – I believe we could use the same mechanism
> as was suggested in
> draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-e2e-signaling (section
> 9.3) for signaling of Secondary LSPs

there is no mechanism to setup/delete "virtual FAs" as part of GMPLS 
signaling protocol today the secondary LSP concept, even if the latter 
may look similar to the virtual FA concept - note: this is explicitly 
mentioned as part of the recovery document

however, the advertisement of the corr. TE link must be identical to 
what currently exist for fully provisioned FAs

> 2.	I agree that we need TE link adaptation
> capabilities to be advertised along with other TE link
> attributes such as switching capabilities, protection
> capabilities, etc. I suggest also adding TE link
> termination capabilities to this list, i.e. decoupling
> of these capabilities from adaptation capabilities: 
> to terminate LSP in a particular layer and to adopt
> into it LSPs of one or more higher layers are separate
> resources and could be considered separately in the
> inter-layer path computations;

would you let us know what is missing in terms of termination 
capabilities - before we expand on this ?

> 3.	Everything that is said about regions, region
> boundaries, etc. is also applicable for layers
> contained within regions. I suggest to do what we have
> already done in the PCE WG documents and
> presentations: replace word region with word layer
> everywhere apart from where signaling specific aspects
> are discussed.

i suggest you take a look at section 3.1 of
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-shiomoto-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-reqs-01.txt>
it may help in understand the region vs layer concepts

> Thanks,
> Igor
>    
>
>
> --- LE ROUX Jean-Louis RD-CORE-LAN
> <jeanlouis.leroux@francetelecom.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Here is a new draft evaluating current GMPLS
> > protocols wrt MRN
> > requirements.
> > Your comments on this new draft would be highly
> > appreciated.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > JL
> >
> > To: i-d-announce at ietf.org 
> > Subject: I-D
> > ACTION:draft-leroux-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-eval-00.txt 
> > From: Internet-Drafts at ietf.org 
> > Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 10:14:38 -0500 
> >
> > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line
> > Internet-Drafts
> > directories.
> >
> >
> > 	Title		: Evaluation of existing GMPLS Protocols
> > against
> > Multi Region Networks
> > 	Author(s)	: J. Le Roux, et al.
> > 	Filename	: draft-leroux-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-eval-00.txt
> > 	Pages		: 11
> > 	Date		: 2005-2-14
> > 	
> > This document provides an evaluation of Generalized
> > Multi-Protocol 
> >   Label Switching (GMPLS) protocols and mechanisms
> > against the 
> >   requirements for Multi Region Networks (MRN).   
> >   In addition, this document identifies areas where
> > additional 
> >   protocol extensions or procedures are needed to
> > satisfy the 
> >   requirements of Multi Region Networks, and
> > provides guidelines for 
> >   potential extensions.
> >
> > A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
>
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-leroux-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-eval-00
>
> > .txt
>
>
>
>
> 	
> 		
> __________________________________ 
> Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! 
> Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web 
> http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/
>
>
> .