headers
Adrian Farrel | 1 Jun 2006 01:00
Picon

Fw: I-D ACTION:draft-farrel-mpls-p2mp-te-mib-00.txt

Hi,

We have put together a first cut of a MIB module for P2MP MPLS-TE.

This is intended to also work for P2MP GMPLS so please review it and 
comment. Comments would best be made on the MPLS mailing list so that all 
discussion of the document are kept in one place.

Cheers,
Adrian
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <Internet-Drafts <at> ietf.org>
To: <i-d-announce <at> ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 8:50 PM
Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-farrel-mpls-p2mp-te-mib-00.txt

>A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
>directories.
>
>
> Title : Point-to-Multipoint Multiprotocol Label
>                          Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE)
>                          Management Information Base (MIB) module
> Author(s) : A. Farrel, et al.
> Filename : draft-farrel-mpls-p2mp-te-mib-00.txt
> Pages : 36
> Date : 2006-5-31
>
>   This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base
>   for use with network management protocols in the Internet community.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Adrian Farrel | 1 Jun 2006 01:15
Picon

Re: A nerw ID is available on the repository draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-00

Hi Dimitri,

> adrian - what does the term "broadcast" connection refers to in the below
> message ?

Well, Walter is the best person to ask since it was his message.

> afaik in the context of MPLS-TE/GMPLS: p2p, and p2mp TE LSPs are
> considered isn'it ?

Some parsing problems on your sentence, but I think you are saying what I 
thought when I read this.

Effectively, I assumed that "broadcast connection" and "multicast 
connection" were intended to be synonyms for P2MP LSP (possibly with slight 
differences in usage maybe through label stacking).

Adrian

> "Adrian Farrel" <adrian <at> olddog.co.uk>
> Sent by: owner-ccamp <at> ops.ietf.org
> 31/05/2006 19:13
> Please respond to "Adrian Farrel"
>
>        To:     "WALTER ROTHKEGEL" <wrothkegel <at> lucent.com>
>        cc:     <ccamp <at> ops.ietf.org>, "Diego Caviglia"
> <Diego.Caviglia <at> marconi.com>, "Dan Li <danli", "Dino Bramanti"
> <Dino.Bramanti <at> marconi.com>
>        Subject:        Re: A nerw ID is available on the repository
> draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-00
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Adrian Farrel | 1 Jun 2006 01:18
Picon

Re: A new ID is available on the repository draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-00

Interesting question.

It would certainly be the case that the picture you draw could arise. I 
guess we would describe this in terms of SPCs. Is it necessary that 
identical state is held at [a] and [b]. In particular, the question of 
Session ID and LSP ID spring to mind.

Yes, we need clear requirements for this type of situation.  Want to suggest 
some?

Adrian

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <Dimitri.Papadimitriou <at> alcatel.be>
To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian <at> olddog.co.uk>
Cc: <ccamp <at> ops.ietf.org>; "Diego Caviglia" <Diego.Caviglia <at> marconi.com>; 
"Dino Bramanti" <Dino.Bramanti <at> marconi.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 7:44 PM
Subject: Re: A nerw ID is available on the repository 
draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-00

> agreed -
>
> question: in case of move CP->MP who guarantees that the CP at state [b]
> retrieves its states it had at [a] e.g.
>
> MP->CP[a]->MP->CP[b]?
>
> do we need a specific requirement for this case ?
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Pandian, Vijay | 1 Jun 2006 04:34
Favicon

RE: A new ID is available on the repository draft-caviglia-ccamp- pc-and-sc-reqs-00

Adrian and Dimitri,

Not sure why we need extra requirements to handle this case. Also not sure
why CP needs to guarantee identical states at [a] and [b]. May be I am not
understanding the case that is being pictured here.

The way I read the requirements, once the control is transferred to MP
(i.e., CP[a] -> MP), CP should forget everything about this LSP, Isn't it? 

If this is true, then MP -> CP[b] should be treated as the ONLY general case
of MP -> CP conversion, right?

Regards,
Vijay

-----Original Message-----
From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adrian <at> olddog.co.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 7:18 PM
To: Dimitri.Papadimitriou <at> alcatel.be
Cc: ccamp <at> ops.ietf.org; Diego Caviglia; Dino Bramanti
Subject: Re: A new ID is available on the repository
draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-00

Interesting question.

It would certainly be the case that the picture you draw could arise. I 
guess we would describe this in terms of SPCs. Is it necessary that 
identical state is held at [a] and [b]. In particular, the question of 
Session ID and LSP ID spring to mind.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Diego Caviglia | 1 Jun 2006 09:20

RE: A new ID is available on the repository draft-caviglia-ccamp- pc-and-sc-reqs-00


Hi Vijay,
          some answers in line.

Regards

Diego

"Pandian, Vijay" <Vijay.Pandian <at> sycamorenet.com> <at> ops.ietf.org on 01/06/2006
04.34.12

Sent by:    owner-ccamp <at> ops.ietf.org

To:    "'Adrian Farrel'" <adrian <at> olddog.co.uk>,
       Dimitri.Papadimitriou <at> alcatel.be
cc:    ccamp <at> ops.ietf.org, Diego Caviglia <Diego.Caviglia <at> marconi.com>,
       Dino Bramanti <Dino.Bramanti <at> marconi.com>

Subject:    RE: A new ID is available on the repository
       draft-caviglia-ccamp-  pc-and-sc-reqs-00

Adrian and Dimitri,

Not sure why we need extra requirements to handle this case. Also not sure
why CP needs to guarantee identical states at [a] and [b]. May be I am not
understanding the case that is being pictured here.

The way I read the requirements, once the control is transferred to MP
(i.e., CP[a] -> MP), CP should forget everything about this LSP, Isn't it?
[dc] That is the idea.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Adrian Farrel | 1 Jun 2006 13:25
Picon

Re: A new ID is available on the repository draft-caviglia-ccamp- pc-and-sc-reqs-00

Hi,

I read Dimitri's comments as being spatial not temporal.
I.e. he drew a figure showing four LSRs.

Dimitri?

Cheers,
Adrian

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Diego Caviglia" <Diego.Caviglia <at> marconi.com>
To: <Vijay.Pandian <at> sycamorenet.com>
Cc: """'Adrian Farrel'" <adrian"" <adrian <at> olddog.co.uk>; 
"Dimitri.Papadimitriou" <Dimitri.Papadimitriou <at> alcatel.be>; "ccamp" 
<ccamp <at> ops.ietf.org>; "Dino Bramanti <Dino.Bramanti" 
<Dino.Bramanti <at> marconi.com>; "Dan Li <danli" <danli <at> huawei.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 8:20 AM
Subject: RE: A new ID is available on the repository draft-caviglia-ccamp- 
pc-and-sc-reqs-00

>
> Hi Vijay,
>          some answers in line.
>
> Regards
>
> Diego
>
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
lidan 37133 | 1 Jun 2006 16:54
Favicon

=?gb2312?B?u9i4tA==?=:RE: A new ID is available on the repository draft-caviglia-ccamp- pc-and-sc-reqs-00

Hi Vijay,

Please see my comments below.

Regards,

Dan

----- 原邮件 -----
发件人: "Pandian, Vijay" <Vijay.Pandian <at> sycamorenet.com>
日期: 星期四, 六月 1日, 2006 上午10:34
主题: RE: A new ID is available on the repository draft-caviglia-ccamp- pc-and-sc-reqs-00

> Adrian and Dimitri,
> 
> Not sure why we need extra requirements to handle this case. Also 
> not sure
> why CP needs to guarantee identical states at [a] and [b]. May be 
> I am not
> understanding the case that is being pictured here.

[DL] Agree with you.

> 
> The way I read the requirements, once the control is transferred 
> to MP
> (i.e., CP[a] -> MP), CP should forget everything about this LSP, 
> Isn't it? 

[DL] Yes, CP SHOULD NOT keep any state of this LSP.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
lidan 37133 | 1 Jun 2006 16:49
Favicon

=?gb2312?B?u9i4tA==?=:Re: A nerw ID is available on the repository draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-00

Hi Dimitri,

If I understand correctly, you have drawn a scenario like this:
Step 1: A PC is migrated to a SC;
Step 2: Then the SC is migrated to a PC;
Step 3: Then the PC is migrated to a SC again;

So how to guarantee the state of a SC at the step 3 is same as the state of a SC at the step 1, am I right?

I think we don't need to keep the same state of the SC at different steps, for example, the session ID of a SC at
step 1 MAY be different with the session ID of a SC at step 3.

I greatly appreciate your comments, hope you can help with this work.

Best regards,

Dan

----- 原邮件 -----
发件人: Dimitri.Papadimitriou <at> alcatel.be
日期: 星期四, 六月 1日, 2006 上午2:44
主题: Re: A nerw ID is available on the repository draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-00

> agreed -
> 
> question: in case of move CP->MP who guarantees that the CP at 
> state [b] 
> retrieves its states it had at [a] e.g.
> 
> MP->CP[a]->MP->CP[b]?
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Dean Cheng (dcheng | 2 Jun 2006 02:17
Picon
Favicon

RE: A nerw ID is available on the repository draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-00

Dear Author,

The conversion between PC and SPC as documented is useful
sometimes, and there was example in carriers networks
in the past as such from PC to SPC although with other
data plane technologies. And so I support this I-D.

Some suggestions:

1) Regarding the division of resources (Section 1.2 etc.).

   This is not only an "implementation" issue. If we allow
   the conversion, it should be defined clearly architecturally.

2) In addition to the "ownership" and "resource division",
   it might also be useful to mention interaction and
   resource transition between CP and MP during the conversion
   as required.

3) In Section 4.1, it may be clearer to say normal make-before-break
   is not an option for the requirement here (data plane consistency).

Thanks
Dean 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ccamp <at> ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-ccamp <at> ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
> Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 10:53 AM
> To: ccamp <at> ops.ietf.org; Diego Caviglia
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 501 comments |
headers
Dan Li | 2 Jun 2006 04:44
Favicon

Re: A nerw ID is available on the repository draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-00

Hi Dean,

Many thanks for your support.

Please see my answer below.

Dan

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dean Cheng (dcheng)" <dcheng <at> cisco.com>
To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian <at> olddog.co.uk>; <ccamp <at> ops.ietf.org>; "Diego Caviglia" <Diego.Caviglia <at> marconi.com>
Cc: "Dan Li <danli" <danli <at> huawei.com>; "Dino Bramanti" <Dino.Bramanti <at> marconi.com>
Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 8:17 AM
Subject: RE: A nerw ID is available on the repository draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-00

Dear Author,

The conversion between PC and SPC as documented is useful
sometimes, and there was example in carriers networks
in the past as such from PC to SPC although with other
data plane technologies. And so I support this I-D.

Some suggestions:

1) Regarding the division of resources (Section 1.2 etc.).

   This is not only an "implementation" issue. If we allow
   the conversion, it should be defined clearly architecturally.

[DL] Ok.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 501 comments |

Gmane