loa
- ok - just wanted to be sure that this requirement is correctly understood
thanks,
- dimitri.
Loa Andersson <loa@pi.se>
07/25/2005 15:06 ZE2
To: Dimitri PAPADIMITRIOU/BE/ALCATEL@ALCATEL
cc: Pär Mattsson <per@defero.se>, ccamp@ops.ietf.org
bcc:
Subject: dimitris question on VLAN vs label (L2SC)
Dimitri,
the simple answer is that I need my VLANs, they give me a
good, understood and reliable service, even when I can set up
LSP through an Ethernet network.
As I see it VLANsd and LSPs is not the same, if we use the
VLAN to encapsulate LSPs we get into a problem of distinguishing
between a VLAN and an LSP.
VLAN is a scarce resource, 2048 per network (yeah - know I can
increase it by managing the VLAN budget carefully, but it is
kind of awkward). I think we should aim for something like 2000
labels per link (I wouldn't object if we can do better).
I'd also say that the the Ethernet network needs to be able
to handle all types of traffic, gmpls, tagged and untagged
over the same swtich. Don't see that a interface separation would
help since VLAN are per platform.
Did I answer your questions?
/Loa
Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be wrote:
> loa,
>
> during the discussion loop one of the possibilities that came out
> consisted in using a dedicated TPID value (different from the value
> 0x8100 used in .1q), that would precede the encoded value as part of the
> TCI
>
> would you please clarify your specific concern ? i would like also to
> point out that there are several cases here
>
> 1. both type of traffic on the same switch but not necessarily on the
> same interface
>
> 2. both type of traffic on the same interface
>
> with the following variant
>
> 2a. interface must accommodate any type of traffic (un-/tagged and labeled)
>
> 2b. interface must accommodate tagged and labeled type of traffic only
>
> thanks,
>
> - dimitri.
>
> *Loa Andersson <loa@pi.se>*
> Sent by: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> 07/22/2005 12:04 ZE2
>
> To: Pär Mattsson <per@defero.se>
> cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> bcc:
> 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.
>
> /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