diego, richard
would it be possible that you refine the notion of "address translation" in the context of the present LMP discussion as i am not necessarily sure something specific needs to considered beside what the LMP transport document already provides (Section 4.3 for inst.)
thanks,
- dimitri.
"Diego Caviglia" <Diego.Caviglia@marconi.com>
Sent by: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
06/01/2005 15:09 ZE2
To: richard.rabbat@us.fujitsu.com
cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org, shiomoto.kohei@lab.ntt.co.jp, rpapneja@isocore.com
bcc:
Subject: RE: Addressing doc
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.