|
Igor,
I, too, am baffled by the notion of requirements for
control of an unspecified data plane.
Regards,
Ben
Dimitri,
The question is simple: is it possible today to
statically provision L2LSPs that could, say, support e2e QoS? If not, may
be it is to early to discuss aspects of dynamic provisioning of such LSPs? Is
it possible/reasonable, in your opinion, to "detail how forwarding information can be exchanged via the control
plane (and then installed)" without having in mind "a specific forwarding
behavior"?
How do you know which forwarding information is
needed for the forwarding nobody has defined yet?
The other question is do we need at all e2e
QoS, route control, fast recovery? Sounds like exciting idea, but does all
that commercially make sense? So, I guess, we need two things before we
can move forward:
a) validation of the idea by the
providers;
b) definition of the data plane
behavior;
Igor
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 12:21
PM
Subject: Re: Frameformat in a l2cs
gmpls rnvironment.
igor - i am not sure which point they
exactly have - the purpose of this document is to detail how forwarding
information can be exchanged via the control plane (and then installed) not
to define a specific forwarding behaviour
thanks,
- dimitri.
"Igor Bryskin" <ibryskin@movaz.com>
Sent by: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
07/22/2005 11:10 AST
To: "Mack-Crane, T. Benjamin" <Ben.Mack-Crane@tellabs.com>,
"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, Pär Mattsson
<per@defero.se>, "Loa Andersson"
<loa@pi.se>
cc: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
bcc:
Subject: Re:
Frameformat in a l2cs gmpls rnvironment.
Hi,
I think Ben and Juergen have a point here. There is nothing
that could be dynamically provisioned that could not be also provisioned by
management. In other words data plane is the King here. We need data plane
standard(s) on how we encode a label, whether we need a label stack or not,
how the labeled traffic is supposed to be treated, how labeled traffic
co-exist with non-label traffic, etc. This is something that not for CCAMP
to define. Take for example TDM networks. GMPLS only provides a way to
dynamically provision G.707 networks. Hence there is a need in parallel
standardization activities in ITU. Only after that we can discuss how all
that could be dynamically provisioned, that is the aspects of control plane.
Igor
----- Original Message -----
From: Mack-Crane, T.
Benjamin
To: Adrian Farrel ; Pär Mattsson ; Loa
Andersson
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Sent: Friday, July 22,
2005 10:23 AM
Subject: RE: Frameformat in a
l2cs gmpls rnvironment.
Hi,
I think Juergen has raised
an important question. How frames are labeled (and the related data
plane forwarding behavior) is not defined by the control plane. The
control plane serves to provision the data plane, not define it. In
the framework draft it is not clear what data plane standards are covered by
the stated control plane requirements. Some references should be
supplied. In any case, the labeling and forwarding behavior should be
defined by these referenced standards, not by GMPLS.
(I am
assuming definition of new data plane standards is out of scope for
CCAMP.)
Regards,
Ben
From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
[mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian
Farrel
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 8:37 AM
To: Pär
Mattsson; Loa Andersson
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject:
Re: Frameformat in a l2cs gmpls rnvironment.
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
>
>
>
>
>
>
============================================================
The information contained in this message may
be privileged
and confidential
and protected from disclosure. If the reader
of this message is not the intended recipient,
or an employee
or agent
responsible for delivering this message to the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any reproduction,
dissemination or distribution of this communication is
strictly
prohibited. If you
have received this communication in error,
please notify us immediately by replying to
the message and
deleting it
from your computer. Thank you. Tellabs
============================================================
============================================================
The information contained in this message may be privileged
and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader
of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee
or agent responsible for delivering this message to the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reproduction,
dissemination or distribution of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please notify us immediately by replying to the message and
deleting it from your computer. Thank you. Tellabs
============================================================
|