Hi all
In my personal opinion, the most disadvantage of the solution described in liaison statement is: the MS-PW is only doing the mapping to TMC, and PW is somelike meaningless. This will change the role of PW, and in fact, the client layer netwrok and the server layer t-mpls transport network are mixed together in the data plane.
In my opinion, using TMP/TMC to multiplex MS-PW is a better solution. We can keep the independence of PW setting up and forwarding, and this solution is much more conform with draft-ietf-pwe3-ms-pw-requirements-05. TMP multiplexing solution is recommended.
Best Regards
Lizhong JIN
Nokia Siemens Networks
Systems Engineering NGM
Building 89, 1122 North QinZhou Road,
Shanghai, 200211, P.R.China
e-mail: lizhong.jin at siemens.com
-----Original Message---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 18:18:03 +0000
From: Stewart Bryant <stbryant at cisco.com>
Subject: [PWE3] SG15Q12 liaison on MS-PW requirements
To: pwe3 <pwe3 at ietf.org>, t-mpls-dt at testbed.se
Message-ID: <4745C7DB.7030701 at cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
I have been taking a look at the following liaison statement
https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/372/
I replying I think that we have to strongly express
our willingness to work together and to request
requirements. Given that we have all but completed
draft-ietf-pwe3-ms-pw-requirements-05.txt
I think that we would have to take the requirements as
as supplementary to the existing requirements.
Now I have a few concerns that we need to look at in
the document:
"Inside the T-MPLS network there is a 1:1 relationship
between the MPLS MS-PW and the T-MPLS Channel trail;
therefore the TMC/PW_A function is not required to
insert a PW label. The reason is that the functionality
of multiplexing (for vertical scalability reasons)
multiple pseudo-wires over a single trunk is performed
at the TMP level (by multiplexing multiple TMCs over a TMP)."
This is saying (and I think that this is a problem
that applies to TMPLS in general that we have not
picked up on) that there is only ONE label
in the packet that does double duty between PW label
AND as MPLS label - perhaps Itallo can confirm). This
breaks the PWE3/MPLS architecture. The only way that I can
see it fitting is if we allow PHP of the PW lable
IFF there is only one PW, which seems something of
an irony!
"Given the fact that T-MPLS has the same QoS architecture
as IP/MPLS networks, the mapping of the QoS at the client
MPLS PW layer and the QoS at the server T-MPLS channel
layer is straightforward."
That is true for data traffic, BUT with the re-use
of the exp bits in the OAM I am not sure that it
holds across the whole design.
Please could others read the liaison and comment on
the correct response.
- Stewart
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 16:46:37 +0000
From: Stewart Bryant <stbryant at cisco.com>
Subject: [PWE3] [Fwd: [TICTOC] updated charter page and agenda
submitted]
To: pwe3 <pwe3 at ietf.org>
Message-ID: <474703ED.1080106 at cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
This will be of interest to some members of the PWE3 list
Stewart
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: "Yaakov Stein" <yaakov_s at rad.com>
Subject: [TICTOC] updated charter page and agenda submitted
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 20:07:18 +0200
Size: 5536
Url: http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/pwe3/attachments/20071123/7ba83084/TICTOCupdatedcharterpageandagendasubmitted.eml
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3 at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
End of pwe3 Digest, Vol 43, Issue 14
************************************
_______________________________________________ pwe3 mailing list pwe3 at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3