[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: LCAS and GMPLS
Hi all, thanks for the update Diego and Adrian. Where
we stand seems to be:
(1) We've got an agreed method using the Call_ID to
identify (VC-3/VC-4) component belonging to a VCAT
group. In particular, the Call_ID along with source
and destination addresses uniquely identifies the VCAT
group in the network?
(2) I can use GMPLS to setup/tear down one or more
VCAT group components at a time. (we've had this for a
while).
(3) Once we set up via GMPLS a new component
(VC-3/VC-4) of a VCAT group we want LCAS to hitlessly
add the new component to the group.
(4) To remove (hitlessly) the component from the VCAT
group we need LCAS to remove it before we actually
tear down the component connection via GMPLS.
Now the thing that seems a bit tricky to me about (3)
and (4) is that LCAS does things unidirectionally, in
the sense of adding/removing components, (not in the
sense of a protocol which has a handshake mechanism).
All add or remove commands come from the source end
and since we generally setup/teardown bi-directional
connections that would leave us with a bit of
coordination. Is this what you are thinking Diego?
LCAS experts chime in too :-)
Greg B.
--- Diego Caviglia <Diego.Caviglia@marconi.com> wrote:
> Hi Adrian,
> IMHO the requirement are two
> 1 identify a set of LSPs as part of the same
> service
> 2 transport end2end the information that the
> LCAS protocol has to be
> enabled on tail end node
>
> Requirement 1 can be accomplished with Call_ID wile
> LCAS information can
> be encoded in the Profile field of the SENDER_TSPEC.
>
> That is my view.
>
> BR
>
> Diego
>
>
> Please respond to "Adrian Farrel"
> <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
> To: "Greg Bernstein <gregbern", "Diego Caviglia"
> <Diego.Caviglia@marconi.com>
> cc: <yhwkim@etri.re.kr>, "ccamp"
> <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
>
> Subject: Re: LCAS and GMPLS
>
> Hi,
>
> In answer to Greg, I think this didn't go further
> because we are waiting
> for a clarification of the requirements.
>
> It sounds to me (from the proposed solutions!!!)
> that the requirements
> placed on signaling may be quite light. But I would
> prefer to see a
> statement of what these are before thinking too much
> about what the
> solution might be.
>
> Are LSPs modified through LCAS, or are LSPs added
> and deleted to support
> modifications in the required service?
>
> Thanks,
> Adrian
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Diego Caviglia" <Diego.Caviglia@marconi.com>
> To: "Greg Bernstein <gregbern" <gregbern@yahoo.com>
> Cc: <yhwkim@etri.re.kr>; "ccamp"
> <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 5:20 AM
> Subject: Re: LCAS and GMPLS
>
>
> >
> > Hi Greg,
> > the idea I've in mind in order to
> identify the various
> VCAT
> > LSPs that are part of the same VCAT group is usage
> of CALL_ID (class-num
> > 230) object. That is the Call_Id identifies the
> 'service' provided to
> the
> > customer that is in this case is a VCAT set of
> LSPs with LCAS. Every
> > member of the set id identified as usual.
> >
> > Call_Id is an ITU-T (G.7713.2) object that has
> been 'accepted' by IETF
> with
> > RFC 3474.
> >
> > BR
> >
> > Diego
> >
> >
> >
> > Greg Bernstein <gregbern@yahoo.com> on 10/06/2005
> 17.37.00
> >
> > To: Diego Caviglia
> <Diego.Caviglia@Marconi.com>, ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> > cc:
> >
> > Subject: Re: LCAS and GMPLS
> >
> > Hi Diego et. al. agree that this is part of the
> > important topic on control of VCAT groups but I
> can't
> > remember why this didn't go further. Is the
> > identification of separately routed VCAT
> components
> > resolved? I.e., those belonging to the same group
> but
> > disjointly routed. (We needed an identifier for
> the
> > VCAT group somewhere in the signaling message).
> >
> > Adrian or Lyndon do you recall?
> >
> > Greg B.
> > --- Diego Caviglia <Diego.Caviglia@Marconi.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > > I'd like to ask what is the statuts of
> the
> > > interworking between
> > > LCAS and GMPLS. Surfing the net I've found a
> couple
> > > of ID about that
> > > subject
> (draft-kim-ccamp-intercaction-grsvpte-lcas
> > > and
> > > draft-mannie-ccamp-gmpls-tdm-lbm) but both of
> them
> > > seems to be expired,
> > > I've also found some interesting discussion on
> this
> > > matter on the ccamp
> > > mail archive.
> > >
> > > Is interwoking between LCAS and GMPLS outside
> the
> > > scope of CCAMP?
> > >
> > > IMHO that is not and should be addressed.
> > >
> > > What is the feeling of the rest of the group?
> > >
> > > Best regards
> > >
> > > Diego
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Discover Yahoo!
> > Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM
> and more. Check it
> out!
> > http://discover.yahoo.com/online.html
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________
Discover Yahoo!
Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news and more. Check it out!
http://discover.yahoo.com/mobile.html