Re: draft-shiomoto-ccamp-lsp-hierarchy-bis-00.txt

[Kohei Shiomoto <shiomoto.kohei@lab.ntt.co.jp>]

Hi Don

Thank you for your comments.

> Hi
> 
> Thanks for the presentation yesterday. A thought occurred to me about
> the numbered versus unnumbered issue in your draft. (Note I will not
> refer to the multiple instances of the control plane since as discussed
> in the meeting I think this should be out of scope).   

As I noted in the response to Dimitri comments, the target control plane
instance is useful when we have multiple layer network where there is a
client-server relationship between them.

> 
> What I like about the unnumbered identifiers are they are hierarchical
> under the GMPLS node ID. I would suggest that even when an interface is

We might want to use unnumbered when we need to save the address space
as you said.

> numbered it could have an unnumbered identifiers as well and the
> numbered interface not be assumed to be advertised but assumed instead
> to be an identifier. It is in my opinion a special case when the

I am not clear what makes us to assign both numbered and unnumbered
address on the same interface. Maybe I miss something.

> numbered interface is out of the same address plan as the GMPLS control
> plane.  Generally we should not assume this is true and separating the
> local identifier context from the GMPLS control addressing has
> advantages.  (already illustrated by your draft). 

Yes. The local interface identifier should come from different address
space of the GMPLS control plane address.

> 
> If we treated all links this way they could have different identifiers
> for the purpose of identification and signaling in the link identifier
> space (e.g. IP, MAC, NSAP etc) and uniformly use unnumbered identifiers
> for all routing and TE advertisement.  I realize this is not the way
> that unnumbered links came about but this might be the more
> "generalized" way to address this.
>
> Did you consider this option?

You are saying that numbered interface is used for GMPLS and different
identifier is used for upper layer instance, aren't you (unnumbered
address is used in GMPLS domain)? It might be a option when we want to
advertise the TE-link in GMPLS control plane as well as in the upper
layer instance. Please correct me if I misunderstand your point.

Thanks,
Kohei

> 
> Regards,
> Don