Adrian Farrel | 4 Jan 19:06 2008
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 12:38 2008
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 17:10 2008

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 17:46 2008
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 17:51 2008
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 17:57 2008

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 18:50 2008
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 11:17 2008
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 08:25 2008
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 15:14 2008
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)


Gmane