Re: Frameformat in a l2cs gmpls rnvironment.

["Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>]

Hi,

 

It is always refreshing how engineers jump straight to a discussion of the solution :-)

 

Perhaps we can assume that the framework draft is a good representation of the problem space, and that we are ready to start discussing the solutions.

 

One (perhaps the only?) significant question to answer is how the frames will be labelled. This question is one we must come to as soon as we are confident that the requirements need to be addressed at all.

 

As has been pointed out, there are several possibilities and to pick from these we need to understand:

1. Do we need to support explicit label stacking?

   Note that this is not supported in TDM, LSC or FSC.

2. Do we need to be able to control (perhaps through an

   external signaling controller) existing hardware and

   install LSPs through existing networks?

3. Do we need to support existing function simultaneous to

   the support of GMPLS L2 LSPs?

 

I think that from a chair's perspective I can give some limited guidance.

 

A. These questions must be raised and answered in the framework I-D

B. The answer to question 3 is "yes". This means that the use of labels

   must not significantly deplete any namespace used to support other

   function.

C. CCAMP is chartered to look at the control of transport networks. This

   includes Metro, but I am unsure about Campus. It does not cover

   signaling to the desktop.

 

Thanks,

Adrian

 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Pär Mattsson" <per@defero.se>

To: "Loa Andersson" <loa@pi.se>

Cc: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>

Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 11:41 AM

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
> >
> 
> 
> 
>