[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PWE3] Inter-op is not necessary

OK.

Are we done with one vs. two protocols yet? ;-)

OK, let's get back into the technical side of the LDP MS-PW. There are a number of issues we need to resolve:

(1) FEC 128 interfacing with FEC 129: FEC128 will not go through multi-hop (or PWid collision). So how would a 128 user signal through the network?

(2) AII format: AII-2 is good for MS. But we are going to use it for all other applications, we need to have a consistent AII format (Andy and George: that ATM-AII and Frame-AII in MFA need to be compatible with this, right? :-))

(3) QoS format: I don't care if it is RSVP-TE or CR-LDP (the operator won't care neither), so let's decide one. If it is the RSVP-TE format (IntServ Controlled Load format, by default), is there any way to deal with tricolor, and preemption?

(4) "Congestion Control": Any thoughts on the mapping of EXP bit in MS-PW? This can be an issue if the PW's run through a trunk without the underlying LSP's. ;-)

(5) Redundancy: I have submitted a draft on this topic. No MS-PW in it yet, but would that be a good starting point?

(6) OAM and OAM interworking: How would it work? Actually, would carriers allow the OAM packets going over the boundary of the network? If I am a carrier, I probably will not allow some guys on either end of my network to run some performance monitoring tests. Then how do we get edge-to-edge OAM?

I think this is what I have.

Thanks!

- Ping


Florin Balus wrote: 
If a re-vote was needed my opinion would be identical with the one
expressed by Vach below.

Still I don't think there is a need to ask a question on whether an LDP
solution is required! The time has passed for that: LDP is already
implemented and deployed for SS-PWs. And the strong support we saw for
draft-balus-bocci-martini-dyn-ms-pwe3 during the WG meeting in
Vancouver, with nobody against, seem to indicate people agree we should
work on expanding the current SS-PW solution to cover MS-PWs.

So the question on the above draft should be asked in my opinion the
same way as it was for the MS-PW architecture draft: e.g. " ... there
was strong consensus to make it a WG draft .. Anybody against say so by
the <date>..." 

Florin


-----Original Message-----
From: pwe3-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Vach Kompella
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 2:36 PM
To: 'pwe3'
Subject: RE: [PWE3] Inter-op is not necessary


I second Danny's call for re-judging consensus.

So here is my re-vote:

Q1. Are you in favor of moving MS-LDP forward as WG draft?
A1. Favor moving MS-LDP forward as WG draft
 - need to have a section of interop with FEC 128

Q2. Are you against moving MS-LDP forward?
A2. No.

Q3. Are you in favor of moving MS-RSVP forward as WG draft?
A3. Withhold judgment on MS-RSVP until these are visible:
- provider support
- app stmt in some rudimentary form
- interop with FEC 128 (the dominant PW FEC type deployed)

Q4. Are you against moving MS-RSVP forward?
A4. Can't answer since I don't have A3.

Q5. Are you in favor of a single solution?
A5. Need to answer A3. My preference would be to have a single solution. However, without A3, it seems pointless to continue this argument. Having implemented FEC 128, I can see how to implement some form of interop with FEC 129. Not having implemented any SS-RSVP, I don't see that as straightforward with MS-RSVP and SS-LDP. So the beginnings of that interop description would be helpful.

As for the broader question of interop between MS-LDP (which seems likely to move forward) and MS-RSVP (which may), can we wait on that until after A3?

Essentially, I don't want stuff gating MS-LDP.

-Vach 


-----Original Message-----
From: pwe3-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces at ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Danny McPherson
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2005 2:34 PM
To: pwe3
Subject: Re: [PWE3] Inter-op is not necessary



Eric et al.,
This is one of the primary reasons why true consensus should
only be obtained via the mailing list - things are much easier qualified, quantified, and .. [re]verified.

Folks, I suggest we let what we each recollect pass and if
you've not voiced your preference/opinions on the mailing list please consider this the place which you need to be heard.

Thanks!

-danny


On Nov 18, 2005, at 10:28 AM, Gray, Eric wrote:


Stewart,

Your version below is pretty much aligned with mine 

except for two

points:

1) "significant difference" is not quantified (or quantifiable);
  a good many people raised hands in both of the two latter cases
  (more than 20 - possibly more than 30 - in both cases), so a
  "significant difference" might be as little as 25% in actual
  difference in numbers.  If we're going to treat this as a vote,
  then we need to count hands.
2) you also asked if any one objected in both of the latter cases
  and no one objected in one case (MS-LDP) and a few did in the
  other case (MS-RSVP).

I am certain that this is what Dimitri is referring to when he said
that "a few" was associated with a different question than as is reported in the minutes.

Also, I do not see how your recollection is different from (or
inconsistent with) John's interpretation. The first 

question (in your

list of three below) was answered in a way that implies a clear
majority wanting to advance both.


_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3 at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3



_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3 at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3




_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3 at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3


_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3 at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3