Re: Frameformat in a l2cs gmpls rnvironment.

[Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be]

igor

> The question is simple: is it possible today to statically provision L2LSPs that could, say, support e2e QoS?

[dp] i suggest you take a look at the proposed scenarios of this document

> 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"?

[dp] i don't think anyone has said the contrary but i don't this means define a new forwarding behaviour

> 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?

[dp] where in the document it has been mentioned e2e QoS or something around end-to-end behaviour but probably i should i ask what you mean with "end-to-end" here

> 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;

[dp] indeed, we definitely need feedback from the user community but also keep this discussion in the ietf context (fyi: 1/3 of the DT is constitued by individuals part of the user community)

> b) definition of the data plane behavior;

[dp] we do not need a definition of the data plane behaviour we do need to identify the relevant behaviour for which GMPLS control plane will be used for exchanging the forwarding information

----- Original Message -----
From: Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be
To: Igor Bryskin
Cc: Mack-Crane, T. Benjamin ; Adrian Farrel ; Pär Mattsson ; Loa Andersson ; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
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
============================================================