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

["LE ROUX Jean-Louis RD-CORE-LAN" <jeanlouis.leroux@francetelecom.com>]

Hi Igor, 

Thanks for these comments

Please see inline


>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : Igor Bryskin [mailto:i_bryskin@yahoo.com] 
>Envoyé : jeudi 3 mars 2005 20:45
>À : LE ROUX Jean-Louis RD-CORE-LAN; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
>Objet : Re: TR : I-D ACTION:draft-leroux-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-eval-00.txt 
>
>
>JL,
>
>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

I wouldn't be so expeditious...
Actually we could use a similar mechanism but definitely not the same.
Secondary LSP are dedicated to Shared Meshed Restoration.
IMHO this would be bad to use the Protection object for soft-FAs. Semantics
are pretty different...


>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;

I agree that our curent terminology may be confusing
What we call Internal Adapatation Capability actually refers to Termination capabilities.
See the MRN requirement draft (version 01) for an example.


>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.

See section 3 of the requirement draft.
Actually what we define for region also applies to layers, but we prefer to
keep the term region here at the time being.

Again, thanks a lot for these comments,

Regards,

JL

>
>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-mr
n-eval-00
> .txt
> 
> 
> 
> 
>



	
		
__________________________________ 
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! 
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web 
http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/