[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Layer 2 Switching Caps LSPs
What do you mean by just two sites?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 7:15 AM
> To: David Allan; Shahram Davari
> Cc: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: Layer 2 Switching Caps LSPs
> Thanks Dave,
> Just one point...
> Is there any difference (from the point of view of the
> network) between a
> VLAN with just two sites, and an LSP that uses the (same
> along the whole
> path) VLAN tag to route data?
> Clearly there is a difference in hardware with respect to the
> way that the
> hardware is programmed from the control plane.)
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Allan" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: "'Adrian Farrel'" <email@example.com>; "'Shahram Davari'"
> Cc: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 9:37 PM
> Subject: RE: Layer 2 Switching Caps LSPs
> > Hi Adrian:
> > Your suggestion is in a way reasonable but with the caveat
> that in IEEE
> > terms, a bridging topology is currently all VLANs (802.1Q single
> > tree) or partitioned into specific ranges (I believe 64 in 802.1s
> although I
> > do not claim to be an expert).
> > If the PEs were to implement a bridge function and we were
> using GMPLS
> > interconnect them, then the control plane should be
> identifying either
> > VLANs (single spanning tree, which I beleive the draft covers by
> > simply to Ethernet port) or a VLAN range to be associated
> with the LSP
> > consistent with 802.1s if it is to operate to interconnect bridges
> > by the IEEE...
> > I suspect assuming any other behavior (e.g. LSP for single VLAN tag)
> > go outside the boundary of what is currently defined...so
> alignment with
> > 802.1s IMO would be a minimum requirement if we are to
> consider carrying
> > VLAN information in GMPLS signalling....
> > cheers
> > Dave
> > You wrote....
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > The authors of the draft might like to clarify for the list
> > > exactly what data plane operations they are suggesting. To me
> > > it seems possible that the draft is proposing VLAN ID
> > > *swapping*. But an alternative is that the VLAN ID is used as
> > > a label, but that the same label is used for the full length
> > > of the LSP.
> > >
> > > Adrian