Re: Frameformat in a l2cs gmpls rnvironment.

[Loa Andersson <loa@pi.se>]

Richard,

I agree to most of this. Since we have doubts about the viability
of taking GMPLS all the way to end-user or enterprise I think it
would be good, from a wg perspective, if we agreed to solve the
core network problems first.

Do you have any comment on the requirement to run both VLANs and
GMPLS on the same switch?

/Loa

richard.spencer@bt.com wrote:
> Regardless of whether or not a switch is directly connected
> to hosts, it must be able to forward packets using the connectionless
> Ethernet data plane. This is due to the fundamental requirement that
> for GMPLS switches to be able to exchange control information with
> each other, a data plane for control traffic must be present.
> This is akin to using the IP data plane for MPLS signalling in an
> IP/MPLS network. An alternative would be to use a static reserved
> L2-LSP for control traffic in the same way that reserved VPI/VCIs
> are used for PNNI signalling in ATM.
> Regarding connecting hosts to GMPLS switches, I personally don't 
> think extending L2-LSPs into the enterprise/home network is
> commercially viable. However, if you do want to use GMPLS switches
> in the home/enterprise network and for some reason don't want to
> extend L2-LSPs down to the host then you will not be performing
> normal Ethernet Mac address switching anyway. Instead you will
> need some kind of policy on the switch that maps connectionless
> Ethernet packets (e.g. based on MAC src/dest, 802.1p, VLAN) to a
> L2-LSP. This is because multiple L2-LSPs to the same destination
> (e.g. a gateway router) may exist for different services/flows
> (e.g. video download, VoIP call, etc.).
> Regards,
> Richard
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org]On
> > Behalf Of Pär Mattsson
> > Sent: 22 July 2005 11:42
> > To: Loa Andersson
> > Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: Frameformat in a l2cs gmpls rnvironment.
> >
> >
> >
> > > Per and Dimitri,
> > >
> > > I would like to come down stronger than that, for me it is
> > > a very strong requirement that the same switch can handle
> > > both VLANs and GMPLs trafic correctly. I can't dsee how that
> > > could be done if using the VLAN tpid to indicate GMPLS
> > > traffic.
> >
> > If you ever want that same switch to handle traffic for a directly
> > connected  host (not to uncommen) you would want that to use normal
> > ethernet macaddress switching. So of course you do not want to have to
> > choose between vlan and gmpls, you would want both at the same time.
> >
> > /per
> >
> >
> >
> > > /Loa
> > >
> > > Pär Mattsson wrote:
> > >
> > > > > hi par, one of the possibilities that has been considered 
> >
> > to cope with
> >
> > > > > this requirement is to use a dedicated TPID for the 
> >
> > Ethernet labeled
> >
> > > > > frames; this would allow differentiated processing with non-labeled
> > > > > framesthanks.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > That seems to make more sence. If that frame is to be sized like a
> > > > 802.1q
> > > > frame. There is not that much space left to a label. Or is 
> >
> > the demand to
> >
> > > > use jumboframes ?
> > > > Has there been any discussion on labelstacking, and mainly where to
> > > > place
> > > > the information?
> > > >
> > > > Regards.
> > > > Per
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Loa Andersson
> > >
> > > Principal Networking Architect
> > > Acreo AB                           phone:  +46 8 632 77 14
> > > Isafjordsgatan 22                  mobile: +46 739 81 21 64
> > > Kista, Sweden                      email:  loa.andersson@acreo.se
> > >                                            loa@pi.se


--
Loa Andersson

Principal Networking Architect
Acreo AB                           phone:  +46 8 632 77 14
Isafjordsgatan 22                  mobile: +46 739 81 21 64
Kista, Sweden                      email:  loa.andersson@acreo.se
                                           loa@pi.se