igor - in-line
it is "no" to all the below a), b) and c) - as logical consequence of the current GMPLS architecture
note: to clarify one of my note here below (where it seems you were not in agreement) about PSC LSP bandwidth and segment stitching i.e. larger bandwidth reservation for the segment than for the end-to-end LSP does not mean different PSC level (note: PSC-1, -2, -3 and -4 are not "layers" they should simply be referred to as levels but this is another discussion) so i wanted to clarify that the default admission control rules for the packet case - within the same PSC level - could be relaxed compared to the other switching technologies without stretching the stitching concept
IB>> My question c) was:
c) Is it possible (should we allow) to stitch PSC1 e2e LSP by a PSC2 LSP segment
If you say NO to this question, than the answer contradicts to what you said above in your note.
[dp] ok - last try for an end-to-end PSC-1 LSP of 2MB you could make use of a PSC-1 segment of 4MB
You are right: whether PSC1 and PSC2 are separate network layers or not is a topic of a separate (painful :=)) discussion. However, I just wanted to point out here that a PSC2 LSP is a provisioned as such for a reason: it is meant to *nest* PSC1 LSPs rather than to stitch them. From the VNT management point of view PSC2 and PSC1 are separate topological layers. that is PSC2 produces topology for PSC1, just like VC4 produces topology for VC12.
The only difference is that in the latter case this relationship is forced by the hardware, and in the former case is not (just logical). Take for example C and C++ programming. Certain things you simply forced not to do in C++, whereas in C you could but shouldn't.
See you in Paris.
Igor
"Igor Bryskin" <ibryskin@movaz.com>
Sent by: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
07/20/2005 13:25 AST
To: "Arthi Ayyangar" <arthi@juniper.net>, Dimitri PAPADIMITRIOU/BE/ALCATEL@ALCATEL
cc: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
bcc:
Subject: Re: LSP stitching questions for discussion
Dimitri,
It seems to me that I mostly agree(?!) with what you wrote in this mail. I'd still want to confirm your views on the following questions:
a) Is it possible (should we allow) to stitch PSC1 e2e LSP by a LSC LSP segment ?
b) Is it possible (should we allow) to stitch VC12 e2e LSP by a VC4 LSP segment ?
c) Is it possible (should we allow) to stitch PSC1 e2e LSP by a PSC2 LSP segment ?
My answers are NO to all three questions. You can sticth PSC1 with PSC1, VC12 with VC12, etc. In all other cases you need, first, to setup a hierarchical LSP (H-LSP) (whether it is FA-LSP (single domain) or not (multi-domain)) in order to create a data link of the e2e LSP switching capability and only after that you can also use a stitching segment on top of this H-LSP).
See also in-line.
Igor
----- Original Message -----
From: Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be
To: Arthi Ayyangar
Cc: Igor Bryskin ; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 4:46 AM
Subject: Re: LSP stitching questions for discussion
arthi,
first a recap: this item on stitching was initiated in order to allow per "domain" control of end-to-end (contiguous) LSP, as part of a separate document, and not to extend its scope (unduly, in this case, see below) but mainly in order to have the set of all related protocol mechanisms within a specific document -
from this initial working assumption, it is clear that the segment must have the properties of the incoming end-to-end LSP which are determined among other by its switching type e.g. PSC-3 or TDM, the first requirement of LSP stitching is contiguity of the end-to-end LSP at the data plane level (after stitching operation) - and this by definition of the initial working assumption -
IB>> Agree
note: the only latitude which is left (for a given switching type e.g. PSC-2) is due to the properties of packet (PSC) networks that allows you stitch a segment having a larger Max Reservable Bandwidth and Unreserved Bandwidth (we would have equivalent latitude for other attributes but this is a local policy decision - which at the end is the sole purpose of this approach)
IB>> Disagree. Conceptually PCS1 and PSC2 are different layers and the latter cannot stitch the former, just like in case VC12 and VC4. You should nest PSC1 within PSC2 instead.
Here are some of the questions related to LSP stitching to start a
discussion on the usage of LSP stitching.
>1) Are the control plane signaling procedures for LSP stitching as
>described in this ID, (explicit request for LSP stitching on
>LSP segment, different label allocation rules; etc) REQUIRED to stitch
>packet LSPs in data plane
-> yes (beside manual config operation)
IB>> Agree
>2) Are the control plane signaling procedures for LSP stitching as
>described in this ID, (explicit request for LSP stitching on
>LSP segment, different label allocation rules; etc) REQUIRED to stitch
>non-packet LSPs in data plane ?
-> yes (beside manual config operation)
IB>> Agree
>3) If an e2e LSP crosses a region boundary (based on different TE
>link switching capabilities), then can I use LSP stitching
>a) control plane procedures for packet LSPs
>b) data plane procedures for packet LSPs
>c) control plane procedures for non-packet LSPs
>d) data plane procedures for non-packet LSPs
-> no, when crossing a region boundary, you simply use a document named "draft-mpls-lsp-hierarchy-08.txt" which is in the RFC Editor queue, but this does not prevent from creating an LSP segment on top of an FA-LSP (see below)
IB>> Agree with the caviat that it should be H-LSP instead of FA-LSP to cover single and multi-domain scenarios
>4) If the switching type of an e2e LSP is different from that of an LSP
>segment, can I use LSP stitching
>a) control plane procedures for packet LSPs
>b) data plane procedures for packet LSPs
>c) control plane procedures for non-packet LSPs
>d) data plane procedures for non-packet LSPs
-> no, in this case progression of the end-to-end LSP establishment, implies that the LSP segment must fulfil a set of constraints carried as part of the incoming end-to-end LSP request, in this case one has to create an LSP segment (with a switching type equal to the incoming end-to-end LSP switching type) over that FA (i.e. referred here above to the LSP segment with a different Switching Type)
IB>> Agree with the caviat that it should be H-LSP instead of FA-LSP to cover single and multi-domain scenarios
Cheers,
Igor
>Note that although 3) and 4) appear to be the same, the reason I have
>them as different questions is that in one case the TE link switching
>capability is examined and in the other case the Generalized Label Request
>is examined.
-> what it appears to me is that this discussion mixes the issue of the operation describing the stitching operations at the domain boundaries from the LSP segment creation itself i.e. an LSP segment can indeed be an FA link inherited from the creation of an (intra-domain) FA-LSP -