We mentioned in the discussion in Minneapolis that the objective was *NOT*
to standardize broken implementations interwork with the correct
implementations.
Agree with Igor's and your comments.
In the introduction, we said:
For the purposes of this document it is assumed that there is a
one-to-one correspondence between control plane and data plane entities.
I think we covered this well. As we mentioned in the draft, "Generally
speaking there is a need for a module/protocol that discovers and manages
control plane/data plane address bindings for the address spaces to be
completely separated. In this case, the TE Router ID could be just a
network unique number. Mandating that TE Router ID be a reachable IP
address eliminates the need of the mentioned above module ・the next hop
data plane TE Router ID could be used as a destination for IP packets
encapsulating the LSP setup (RSVP Path) message."
We will update the draft to show that we are inclusive of both the simple
case and the more complex case that requires the mapping that we discussed
above.
Based on that, why not to progress it to WG draft? Moving it to WG draft
means that the WG is interested in the topic and wants to address the topic.
Richard.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2005 10:11 AM
To: Igor Bryskin
Cc: Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be; Kireeti Kompella; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: Addressing doc
igor, i mentioned this because when some implement - for whatever purpose
- a subset of capabilities and draw recommendations from this partial set,
these should not by any means retrofit to the complete set of capabilities
this protocol suite delivers or imply recommendations that would prevent
from using its full set
coming to the below you have been mentioned on what this so-called
separation does imply is that for constructing - and LMP can be used in
helping this construction but this is also not mandatory - the TE topology
make use of the TE router ID for the identification unnumbered interfaces
and (abstract) nodes, (numbered interfaces are also part of this class of
information - but obviously does not require the use of the TE Router ID)
afterwards any control plane message exchange can make use of the IP
control plane topology as long as these messages are exchanged between
control plane entities that have initially advertized (i.e. as owner of)
this information
hope this clarifies,
- dimitri.
Igor Bryskin <i_bryskin@yahoo.com>
Sent by: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
04/17/2005 05:50 MST
To: Dimitri PAPADIMITRIOU/BE/ALCATEL@ALCATEL
cc: Dimitri PAPADIMITRIOU/BE/ALCATEL@ALCATEL, Kireeti Kompella
<kireeti@juniper.net>, ccamp@ops.ietf.org
bcc:
Subject: Re: Addressing doc
Dimitri,
I think we are in agreement here. The only thing I
disagree with is your statement that the document is
not ready to be WG document for the reasons you have
provided. I am not the author of this document and I
let the authors tell what they think. However, the
whole point of the document, as far as I understand
it, is not to mandate something, rather, to provide a
set of recommendations based on the interop tests
experience, so that interoperability between different
vendors would be easier to achieve. Hence, they do not
need to spell out word RECOMMEND in every clause.
WRT TE Router ID. Of course, IFF there is some
knowledge or mechanism to translate TE addresses into
control plane IP addresses, any of next hop IP
addresses could be used as destination in RSVP Path
message IP packet. In this case IHMO Te Router ID
does not even have to be routable, and full separation
between TE and control plane name spaces could be
achieved. I think LMP could help to do this. However,
one cannot mandate using LMP for every link in every
layer, especially, for IP/MPLS layer(s).
Igor
--- Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be wrote:
>
> igor, my point is that if you recommend
>
> " A Path message is sent to the next hop node. It
> is RECOMMENDED that
> the TE router ID of the next hop node be used as
> an IP destination
> address in the packet that carries the RSVP-TE
> message. "
>
> and
>
> " ... an unnumbered link is identified by the
> combination of TE Router
> ID and a node-unique Interface ID."
>
> then it is clear that the following occurs
>
> " The reason why the TE Router ID must be a
> reachable IP address is
> because in GMPLS, control and data plane
> names/addresses are not
> completely separated. "
>
> and the only change that needs to be done in this
> document in section 4.3
>
> "It is RECOMMENDED that a stable
> control plane IP address of the next/previous hop
> node be used as an
> IP destination address in RSVP-TE message.
>
> A Path message is sent to the next hop node. It
> is RECOMMENDED that
> the TE router ID of the next hop node be used as
> an IP destination
> address in the packet that carries the RSVP-TE
> message."
>
> is to remove the second paragraph, as there is
> nothing that mandates that
> communication between adjacent controllers should
> achieved through TE
> router ID (note: reading the document you will see
> that the section 5.2.1
> is indeed
> not completed just for this reason)
>
> in fact, this boils down to say that the TE router
> ID is not mandatorily
> used for hop-by-hop exchange of control messages as
> i can build adjacencies
> between neighboring nodes using the base IP routing
> topology, (by the way
> from where all restrictions that are pointed here
> below come from ?)
>
> thanks,
> - dimitri.
> ---
>
> Dimitri,
>
> Suppose a controller has just received an RSVP Path
> message that contains an ERO describing a path
> computed on the head-end (properly modified, of
> course, along the path). ERO is specified in terms
> of
> numbered or/and unnumbered TE links (and not IP
> addresses). Now the processing controller needs to
> forward the message to the controller that manages
> first non-local ERO sub-object. The question is what
> to set as destination in the IP header of the RSVP
> Path message? You are saying that it should a stable
> IP address of the controller managing the next hop.
> Where the processing controller is supposed to get
> this stable IP address from? All that it has is a
> numbered or unnumbered next hop TE link ID. It is
> not
> guaranteed that numbered TE link ID is a routable
> address, however, it could be easily resolved to TE
> Router ID. In case of unnumbered TE link the TE
> Router
> ID is a part of the link ID. It is also guaranteed
> that TE Router ID is a stable routable IP address of
> the controller advertising the TE link. Hence, the
> recommendation makes a lot of sense to me ? extract
> TE
> Router ID from unnumbered link ID ERO subobject or
> resolve numbered TE link ID into TE Router ID, set
> it
> as destination in IP header of the RSVP Path message
> and forward the packet ?the message will arrive at
> the
> controller managing next hop no matter how many
> actual
> IP hops the packet will make. In fact, that's how
> the
> control plane and data plane separation needs to be
> supported.
>
> Cheers,
> Igor
>
> --- Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be wrote:
> >
> > this document is not ready as it prevents usage of
> > the control channel
> > separation as defined in Section 8 of RFC 3473
> (but
> > also representation of
> > complex nodes)
> >
> > i point out here the sentences from where this can
> > be deduced:
> >
> > " A Path message is sent to the next hop node.
> It
> > is RECOMMENDED that
> > the TE router ID of the next hop node be used
> as
> > an IP destination
> > address in the packet that carries the RSVP-TE
> > message. "
> >
> > combined with the following statements
> >
> > " ... an unnumbered link is identified by the
> > combination of TE Router ID and a node-unique
> > Interface ID."
> >
> > " It is RECOMMENDED that the IP tunnel endpoint
> > address in the Session
> > Object [RFC3209] be set to the TE Router ID of
> > the egress since the
> > TE Router ID is a unique routable ID per node."
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > " It is RECOMMENDED that the IP tunnel sender
> > address in the Sender
> > Template Object [RFC3209] specifies the TE
> Router
> > ID of the ingress
> > since the TE Router ID is a unique routable ID
> > per node."
> >
> > therefore, usage of the TE Router ID should be
> > reviewed, such that it does
> > not recommends the source and destination of IP
> > packets to be the TE Router
> > ID but simply a stable reachable control plane IP
> > address of the
> > next/previous hop
> >
> > also, there is a sentence in this document
> >
> > " The reason why the TE Router ID must be a
> > reachable IP address is
> > because in GMPLS, control and data plane names
> > /addresses are not
> > completely separated. "
> >
> > my response to this is of course if you use it
> like
> > proposed in this
> > document this problem occurs
> >
> > ps:
> >
> > section 5.1.2 of this document is unclear wrt
> > section 1.1 of
> >
>
<<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-isis-gmpls-extensions-19.txt>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-isis-gmpls-extensions-19.txt>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Plan great trips with Yahoo! Travel: Now over 17,000
> guides!
> <http://travel.yahoo.com/p-travelguide>http://travel.yahoo.com/p-travelguide
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
<http://mail.yahoo.com>http://mail.yahoo.com