RE: Addressing doc

["Diego Caviglia" <Diego.Caviglia@marconi.com>]

Hi Richard,
                        I think that some text that explain how LMP can be
used to translate between TE links and control plane addresses should be
very valuable.

BTW if you think that the explanation is out of the scope of the ID may be
some text that highlights that  LMP is one of the protocols that could be
used to do address translation between  TE links and control plane
addresses can be enough.

Diego





"Richard Rabbat" <richard.rabbat@us.fujitsu.com>@ops.ietf.org on 01/06/2005
02.38.08

Sent by:    owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org


To:    "'Diego Caviglia'" <Diego.Caviglia@marconi.com>, "'\"\"'ccamp'\"
       <ccamp\"'"
cc:    <richard.rabbat@us.fujitsu.com>, "'\"\"'Kohei Shiomoto'\"
       <shiomoto.kohei\"'", "'\"\"'Rajiv Papneja'\" <rpapneja\"'"

Subject:    RE: Addressing doc



Hi  Diego,

We're  currently working on an update to
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-addressing-00.txt. I  was wondering if you have any
ideas w/r to your request below? Are you looking  for an explanation of how
LMP could be used or simple text that highlights that  LMP is one of the
protocols that could be used to do address translation between  TE links
and control plane addresses?

Richard.

-----Original Message-----
From: Diego Caviglia  [mailto:Diego.Caviglia@marconi.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005  8:42 AM
To: richard.rabbat@us.fujitsu.com
Cc: ""'ccamp'"  <ccamp"; ""'Kohei Shiomoto'" <shiomoto.kohei"; ""'Rajiv
Papneja'"  <rpapneja"
Subject: RE: Addressing  doc



Richiard,
                      IMHO also a section (or sub-section)  dedicated to
LMP usage could be very useful in order to clarify how LMP can  help in
addressing resolution.

BR

D

Sent by:         owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org

To:         "'ccamp'"  <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
cc:        "'Kohei Shiomoto'" <shiomoto.kohei@lab.ntt.co.jp>, "'Richard
Rabbat'" <richard.rabbat@us.fujitsu.com>, "'Rajiv Papneja'"
<rpapneja@isocore.com>

Subject:         RE: Addressing  doc



Hi all,

The editors have been having various discussions  with people  about some
oftheir issues  with this draft. In order to clarify a  some  points here
are some of thechanges that  we plan tomake to the  next version  of the
draft. We hope thiswill help  to clarify  the draft.

1. In section 4.2.1,  previous text:
   Alternatively, the tunnel end  point  address MAY also be set to
the destination data plane address  if the  ingress knows that address or
the TE Router ID.
New  text:
   Alternatively, the tunnel end point address MAY  also  be set to
thedestination data plane  address if the ingress knows that  address.

2. In section 4.2.2 previous text:
   Alternatively,  the tunnel  sender address MAY also be set to thesender
data plane address or the TE  Router ID.
New  text:
   Alternatively, the tunnel sender  address MAY also  be set to thesender
data plane  address.

3. at the end of the introduction, we will add  wording  to the last line
to that effect:
Various more complex deployment scenarios can be  constructed but  these
are currently out of scope as the only GMPLS implementations  encountered
ininteroperability testing or in deployment have  applied  this
relationship. Whennew  implementations that include any other  relationship
between controlplane and data plane entities are encountered,   this
document would beenhanced as  necessary.