Multiprotocol Label Switching (mpls)

Adrian Farrel | 4 Jan 2008 19:06

Picon

Nit in draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-p2mp-03

Hi,

You have...

       0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |P2MP Type (TBD)|        Address Family         | Address Length|
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                       Root Node Address                       |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |    Opaque Length              |    Opaque Value ...           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                               +
      ~                                                               ~
      |                                                               |
      |                               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

This gives the impression that only four octets are allowed for the Root 
Node Address.
Can you change it to...

       0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |P2MP Type (TBD)|        Address Family         | Address Length|
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      ~                       Root Node Address                       ~
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

(Continue reading)

Loa Andersson | 7 Jan 2008 12:38

Picon

consensus call on the t-mpls design team issues list

Working Groups,

Following the last IETF the IAB technical ad-hoc committee on T-MPLS
reviewed the text of ITU-T documents  G.8113 and G.8114, and
generated an issues list, which we sent directly to the authors of
the ITU-T documents for their consideration. There has been some
discussion with the authors on these issues.

In preparation for the ITU-T SG13 Plenary in Seoul which begins next
week, we need to formally liaise this issues list to the ITU-T so that
it exists as a document that can be discussed at the meeting. We note
that there have been a number of responses by the ITU-T authors, but
we feel that it is appropriate to publish the full list to provide
the necessary context at the SG13 plenary.

G.8114 proposes two applications for label 14, an endpoint OAM
alert, a P router OAM alert (i.e. requires the P router to take special
action on packets with label 14 in the stack), and we have also see
proposal to further extend use of label 14 to provide a messaging
channel for control plan traffic. In addition to the detailed review of
G.8113 and G.8114, the IETF therefore has to question whether
the ITU-T approach of using a single reserved label (or indeed
any reserved label) is the right approach for the applications
that they have in mind, and we believe that this should be
added to the issues list as an over-riding concern.

The document we sent to the ITU authors was in word format (their
standard) and time does not permit us to convert this to ASCII. We
therefore make the document available to the IETF in word
and pdf format.

(Continue reading)

Alexander Vainshtein | 7 Jan 2008 17:10

RE: [PWE3] consensus call on the t-mpls design team issues list

Loa and all,

Please count my YES (for both WGs) in the "consensus count" (is there
any such thing?).

Regards,
                     Sasha Vainshtein
-----Original Message-----
From: Loa Andersson [mailto:loa <at> pi.se] 
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 1:39 PM
To: mpls <at> ietf.org; pwe3; Stewart Bryant; George Swallow; Danny McPherson
Cc: W. Mark Townsley; David Ward
Subject: [PWE3] consensus call on the t-mpls design team issues list

Working Groups,

Following the last IETF the IAB technical ad-hoc committee on T-MPLS
reviewed the text of ITU-T documents  G.8113 and G.8114, and
generated an issues list, which we sent directly to the authors of
the ITU-T documents for their consideration. There has been some
discussion with the authors on these issues.

In preparation for the ITU-T SG13 Plenary in Seoul which begins next
week, we need to formally liaise this issues list to the ITU-T so that
it exists as a document that can be discussed at the meeting. We note
that there have been a number of responses by the ITU-T authors, but
we feel that it is appropriate to publish the full list to provide
the necessary context at the SG13 plenary.

G.8114 proposes two applications for label 14, an endpoint OAM

(Continue reading)

IJsbrand Wijnands | 7 Jan 2008 17:46

Picon

Re: Nit in draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-p2mp-03

Thanks Adrian, we'll address it in the next revision.

Ice.

On 04 Jan 2008, at 19:06, Adrian Farrel wrote:

> Hi,
>
> You have...
>
>       0                   1                   2                   3
>       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>      |P2MP Type (TBD)|        Address Family         | Address Length|
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>      |                       Root Node Address                       |
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>      |    Opaque Length              |    Opaque Value ...           |
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                               +
>      ~                                                               ~
>      |                                                               |
>      |                               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>      |                               |
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
> This gives the impression that only four octets are allowed for the  
> Root Node Address.
> Can you change it to...
>
>       0                   1                   2                   3

(Continue reading)

Stewart Bryant | 7 Jan 2008 17:51

Picon

ITU-T reply to PWE3/MPLS liaison requesting delay in publishing G.8113/4

We received the following response from Brian Moore re our
liaison recommending the delay of publication of G.8113/4
https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/file503.txt

CC: "Loa Andersson" <loa <at> pi.se>, "Stewart Bryant" <stbryant <at> cisco.com>, 
"Danny McPherson" <danny <at> arbor.net>, "George Swallow \(swallow\)" 
<swallow <at> cisco.com>, "Ross Callon" <rcallon <at> juniper.net>, "David Ward" 
<dward <at> cisco.com>, "Mark Townsley" <townsley <at> cisco.com>, "Jari Arkko" 
<jari.arkko <at> piuha.net>, "Russ Housley" <housley <at> vigilsec.com>, "Olaf M. 
Kolkman" <olaf <at> NLnetLabs.nl>, <statements <at> ietf.org>

Subject:	Re: Recommendation to delay approval of Y.1372/G.8113 and Y.1373/G.8114

Date:	Thu, 13 Dec 2007 12:05:42 -0000

To:	<stbryant <at> cisco.com>, <neal <at> its.bldrdoc.gov>, <georges.sebek <at> itu.int>, <hhelvoort <at> huawei.com>

From:	"Brian Moore" <brian <at> bwmc.demon.co.uk>

Dear Stewart,
I will issue this as an Incoming Liaison for the Study Group 13 meeting in
January. The decision on the Recommendations will
be taken in the meeting by the ITU-T sector members and member states based
upon consideration of the input documents, including liaison statements.
Regards,
Brian.

This text is on the ietf liaison page at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/file504.txt

(Continue reading)

DECRAENE Bruno RD-CORE-ISS | 7 Jan 2008 17:57

RE: draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-interarea-01.txt to WG last call

Hi Dave,

[...]

> > > I believe that some clarification needs to be added to the draft
regarding
> > > the conditions under which fault notification operates.
> > > Some specific
> > > comments are as follows:
> > >
> > > - Add a statement to section 4, problem statement,
> > > indicating that LDP label
> > > withdrawal can be used to advertise the state of a PE in a remote,
> > > summarized area/level, replacing the function done by the IGP in a
flat
> > > domain
> >
> >
> > The section "7.2. Impact on routing convergence time" already
> > has a discussion on this subject and states that "In case of
> > failure of the egress LER node, given that the IGP
> >    aggregates IP route on ABRs, the routing convergence behavior is
> >    changed compared to [LDP]. As the IGP does not carries specifics
> >    prefixes outside of the egress area, the IGP will not
> > propagate the
> >    notification of node failure outside of the area and therefore
> >    notification will rely on LDP. The FEC(s) of the egress
> > LER will be
> >    removed in an ordered way through the end-to-end
> > propagation of the

(Continue reading)

Stewart Bryant | 7 Jan 2008 18:50

Picon

Liaison from ITU-T Q9/15 on T-MPLS ring protection.

We received a liasion from ITU-T Q9/15 on T-MPLS ring protection.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/386/

Please can I have your views by 22  January so that we can respond to 
the liaison.

Thanks

Stewart

My thoughts are as follows:

This is clearly a new type of MPLS packet forwarding technology and
as such comes under the purview of the MPLS Change Process (RFC 4929).
It should therefore be pursued through the IETF Standards Process.

It is regrettable that a new, specialist repair mechanism is
proposed for this topology, when it is clear that the problem could be 
solved by the
widely deployed repair mechanism based on nested MPLS encapsulation
(so called MPLS-TE fast reroute).

It is our understanding that ring protection requires signaling between the
two sides of the failure before the repair can start and that this would 
seem
to be therefore slower than the already deployed  mechanism that allows
the repairing system to autonomously invoke the repair.

We are further concerned that unlike existing MPLS fast re-route mechanisms

(Continue reading)

Adrian Farrel | 10 Jan 2008 11:17

Picon

Re: working group last callfordraft-ietf-mpls-number-0-bw-te-lsps

Hi,

I have been very tardy, so none of my notes below should be considered 
blocking on my account, nor even a request for a change.

You may want to consider them for any future revision.

Cheers,
Adrian

>> Abstract
>> s/carried onto/carried by/
>> s/referred to as unconstrained TE LSP/referred to as unconstrained TE 
>> LSPs/
===
Section 2

s/Label Switched Path(s) (TE LSP)/Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs)/
s/assumption about/assumptions about/
s/(Label Switching Router)/(Label Switching Routers)/
===
Section 2

   Unconstrained TE LSPs that are configured and provisioned through a
   management system MAY not be included in the count that is reported.

The use of "MAY not" is ambiguous. People will be unclear whether you 
actually mean "MAY NOT".

I think you want...

(Continue reading)

Italo Busi | 11 Jan 2008 08:25

Picon

RE: [PWE3] consensus call on the t-mpls design team issues list

Loa, Stewart,

See my comments in line marked with [ib]

Italo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Loa Andersson [mailto:loa <at> pi.se] 
> Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 12:39 PM
> To: mpls <at> ietf.org; pwe3; Stewart Bryant; George Swallow; 
> Danny McPherson
> Cc: W. Mark Townsley; David Ward
> Subject: [PWE3] consensus call on the t-mpls design team issues list
> 
> Working Groups,
> 
> Following the last IETF the IAB technical ad-hoc committee on T-MPLS
> reviewed the text of ITU-T documents  G.8113 and G.8114, and
> generated an issues list, which we sent directly to the authors of
> the ITU-T documents for their consideration. There has been some
> discussion with the authors on these issues.
> 
> In preparation for the ITU-T SG13 Plenary in Seoul which begins next
> week, we need to formally liaise this issues list to the ITU-T so that
> it exists as a document that can be discussed at the meeting. We note
> that there have been a number of responses by the ITU-T authors, but
> we feel that it is appropriate to publish the full list to provide
> the necessary context at the SG13 plenary.
>

(Continue reading)

Brian Moore | 11 Jan 2008 15:14

Picon

Picon

Re: Ad Hoc committee on T-MPLS issues with G.8113 and G.8114

Stewart,
We will issue this as a liaison TD to Working Party 4/13. The decision on 
the Recommendations, in line with ITU-T working procedures and practices, 
will taken by the study group after consideration by Q5/13 and Working Party 
4/13 of the technical issues raised in contributions to the meeting.
Brian.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stewart Bryant" <stbryant <at> cisco.com>
To: <tsbsg13 <at> itu.int>; <georges.sebek <at> itu.int>; "Huub van Helvoort" 
<hhelvoort <at> chello.nl>; "Q5/13" <tsg13q5 <at> itu.int>; <brian <at> bwmc.demon.co.uk>; 
<neal <at> its.bldrdoc.gov>
Cc: "Russ Housley" <housley <at> vigilsec.com>; <iesg <at> ietf.org>; "IAB" 
<iab <at> ietf.org>; "Mark Townsley" <townsley <at> cisco.com>; "Jari Arkko" 
<jari.arkko <at> piuha.net>; "Ross Callon" <rcallon <at> juniper.net>; "pwe3" 
<pwe3 <at> ietf.org>; <mpls <at> ietf.org>; "Danny McPherson" <danny <at> tcb.net>; 
"Stewart Bryant" <stbryant <at> cisco.com>; "George Swallow (swallow)" 
<swallow <at> cisco.com>; "Loa Andersson" <loa <at> pi.se>; <statements <at> ietf.org>
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 2:03 PM
Subject: Ad Hoc committee on T-MPLS issues with G.8113 and G.8114

> To:
>
> tsbsg13 <at> itu.int <tsbsg13 <at> itu.int>
> Georges Sebek <georges.sebek <at> itu.int>
> ITU-T SG13 Question 5 <tsg13q5 <at> itu.int>
> Huub van Helvoort <hhelvoort <at> chello.nl>
> Brian Moore <brian <at> bwmc.demon.co.uk>
> Neal Seitz <neal <at> its.bldrdoc.gov>
>

(Continue reading)

Group

gmane.ietf.mpls.

Advertisement

Search Archive

Page

1 | 2 | 3

Articles in period: 29

January 2008

Language

Change language

Options

Current view: Threads only / Showing only 20 lines / Not hiding cited text.
Change to All messages, whole messages, or hide cited text.

Post a message
NNTP Newsgroup
Classic Gmane web interface
XML

XML

RSS Feed
List Information

About Gmane

Recent entries

I-D Action: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-id-mib-03.txt (19 Jun 2013)
[Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6426 (3660) (17 Jun 2013)
mLDP protection drafts reviewed (16 Jun 2013)
Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-retire-ach-tlv (13 Jun 2013)
Milestones changed for mpls WG (11 Jun 2013)
MPLS-RT review of draft-farbryantrel-mpls-retire-ach-tlv (9 Jun 2013)
New Version Notification for draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp-02.txt (9 Jun 2013)
I-D Action: draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp-02.txt (9 Jun 2013)
FW: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-mpls-retire-ach-tlv-01.txt (8 Jun 2013)
I-D Action: draft-ietf-mpls-retire-ach-tlv-01.txt (8 Jun 2013)
Comments to draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-tp-pw-over-bidir-lsp-01 (8 Jun 2013)
I-D Action: draft-ietf-mpls-gach-adv-08.txt (7 Jun 2013)
Heads up : IETF Last Call on "Auto Discovery VPN Problem Statement and (7 Jun 2013)
I-D Action: draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-hsmp-lsp-00.txt (4 Jun 2013)
mpls Digest, Vol 109, Issue 55 (3 Jun 2013)
MPLS-RT review of draft-osborne-mpls-extended-admin-groups-01 (3 Jun 2013)
Concerns about draft-kompella-mpls-special-purpose-labels-02 (31 May 2013)
Poll to see if we have consensus to make draft-lim-mpls-proxy-lsp-ping (30 May 2013)
IPR Disclosure: Cisco's Statement of IPR Related to draft-lim-mpls-pro (30 May 2013)
OOps, Poll for adoption (was: MPLS WG last call on draft-kompella-mpls (30 May 2013)
IPR poll on draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-applicability-label-adv (30 May 2013)

Archives

71	June 2013
187	May 2013
90	April 2013
148	March 2013
142	February 2013
184	January 2013
173	December 2012
167	November 2012
193	October 2012
72	September 2012
176	August 2012
226	July 2012
105	June 2012
83	May 2012
95	April 2012
216	March 2012
86	February 2012
100	January 2012
83	December 2011
149	November 2011
141	October 2011
120	September 2011
147	August 2011
303	July 2011
184	June 2011
247	May 2011
182	April 2011
229	March 2011
107	February 2011
148	January 2011
183	December 2010
145	November 2010
170	October 2010
56	September 2010
121	August 2010
217	July 2010
118	June 2010
114	May 2010
168	April 2010
319	March 2010
112	February 2010
92	January 2010
40	December 2009
77	November 2009
66	October 2009
40	September 2009
25	August 2009
56	July 2009
26	June 2009
22	May 2009
16	April 2009
90	March 2009
33	February 2009
18	January 2009
32	December 2008
85	November 2008
115	October 2008
91	September 2008
88	August 2008
63	July 2008
41	June 2008
69	May 2008
74	April 2008
49	March 2008
76	February 2008
29	January 2008
24	December 2007
46	November 2007
32	October 2007
47	September 2007
12	August 2007
44	July 2007
39	June 2007
42	May 2007
33	April 2007
64	March 2007
30	February 2007
49	January 2007
37	December 2006
70	November 2006
49	October 2006
69	September 2006
18	August 2006
36	July 2006
79	June 2006
48	May 2006
103	April 2006
26	March 2006
79	February 2006
29	January 2006
50	December 2005
31	November 2005
38	October 2005
32	September 2005
54	August 2005
37	July 2005
32	June 2005
42	May 2005
32	April 2005
58	March 2005
84	February 2005
26	January 2005
52	December 2004
63	November 2004
111	October 2004
46	September 2004
44	August 2004
34	July 2004
93	June 2004
121	May 2004
83	April 2004
133	March 2004
88	February 2004
82	January 2004
26	December 2003
227	November 2003
121	October 2003
82	September 2003
89	August 2003
118	July 2003
167	June 2003
86	May 2003
161	April 2003
396	March 2003
195	February 2003
164	January 2003
374	December 2002
221	November 2002
157	October 2002
102	September 2002
147	August 2002
435	July 2002
192	June 2002
277	May 2002
245	April 2002

Design

Zawodny | Right Menu | Left Menu

Your Own Design

Paste the URL of your CSS below. Download CSS template