[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Draft response to MFA
Very comprehensive response!
Here are some additional suggested comments:
1. Regarding the proposed extensions for multi-class DSTE LSPs, rather
than a proprietary extension perhaps the MFA can be encouraged to
support IETF draft.
02.txt. It seems best that standard protocol extensions be worked out
in the IETF.
2. Appendix A RE available OAM mechanisms seems a bit superfluous and
perhaps could be deleted.
3. FEC = forwarding equivalence class
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On
Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 6:55 AM
Subject: Draft response to MFA
Thanks to those of you who have sent comments on and off the list.
Deborah and I have put together this draft response to the MFA. You can
the original liaison at http://www.olddog.co.uk/ccamp.
Please send you thoughts on this by 28th November so that we can send
Thank you very much for giving the CCAMP working group the opportunity
comment on the MFA's MPLS CNI specification.
At this stage we have the following high-level comments that we request
MFA to consider and answer. Some of these comments are for clarification
we try to ramp-up on the requirements you are addressing. Others concern
technical issues that we feel you should address before advancing this
Adrian Farrel and Deborah Brungard
CCAMP Working Group Co-Chairs
We note that you have opted to define a new RSVP object to support a
multi-class LSP following the rules for vendor private assignment as
described in section 2.2 of RFC3936. We believe that you may have
misinterpreted the purpose of vendor private extensions since such
extensions are specifically not intended to interoperate, but you are
attempting to define a specification directly for the purpose of
interworking devices from different vendors. In your case it would seem
make more sense to define a standardized extension to the protocol.
Should you decide that a standardized extension is better able to
the functionality that you require, we should like to draw your
draft-andersson-rtg-gmpls-change-06.txt that defines how other SDOs may
influence the development of MPLS and GMPLS protocols within the IETF,
which is currently in IETF last call. The (G)MPLS suites of protocols
become popular among multiple SDOs resulting in a need for IETF to
it's role as the responsible SDO for (G)MPLS protocol extensions so as
prevent unnecessary replication of functionality and the resulting
1. The document is marked as Straw Ballot Text. Can you tell us
what that means the status of the work is?
2. We think that your use of terminology may be a little loose.
In many cases, where you say "MPLS" you are probably referring
to the data plane, and specifically a packet-switching data
plane with an MPLS encapsulation.
But in other cases, "MPLS" and "MPLS-TE" are synonymous and
refer to a signaling/routing control plane using the MPLS-TE
extensions to RSVP and to the two IGPs OSPF and IS-IS.
In many cases you say "GMPLS-TE" which is not something we
specifically recognise although we can assume that you mean
simply "GMPLS". Sometimes, where you are trying to
distinguish a TE LSP established using MPLS-TE from one set
up using GMPLS you may intend to say "GMPLS TE-LSP" rather
than "GMPLS-TE LSP".
We feel that close attention to the terminology may help
clarify the document.
3. Section 1.1 states:
The purpose of this specification is to define an MPLS-based
Client to Network Interconnect (CNI) for establishing GMPLS
Traffic Engineered (TE) Label Switched Paths (LSPs).
Can we assume that this means that the client-to-client LSPs
are established using GMPLS protocols, but that the signaling
within the core network is out of scope? Especially since
section 1.2 states:
At the CNI, it is not desirable to have the client equipment
participate in the internal control protocols of the MPLS
4. Can you clarify why you have selected GMPLS protocols and not
MPLS-TE protocols on which to build your CNI. We are not
opposed to this, but are seeking to understand the choice.
Perhaps the main reason is the requirement for bidirectional
5. Can you clarify whether the core network is assumed to be
PSC only? That is, for example, if the CNI encoding is POS,
would it be acceptable for the PE and the rest of the core
network to switch the LSP as TDM until the remote PE or even
CE, or do you require that the PE must perform packet
switching? If the PE must perform packet switching, is it
still acceptable for the core LSP (PE-PE) to be switched at
some other technology?
6. Section 1.3 states:
Where the network uses MPLS-TE signaling, the PE routers are
expected to perform the translation.
It is our opinion that this translation is non-trivial and may
be impossible for some of the GMPLS services that are
available at the CNI. For example, supporting a bidirectional
service over an MPLS-TE signaling network requires additional
coordination between the end-points that is currently not
available in the MPLS-TE extensions to RSVP-TE.
From the following text in section 7.1, we assume that the PE
may refuse a CNI request if it is unable to provide the
required level of function.
The transport network in the provider network is a GMPLS or
MPLS-TE based packet switched network that must support
request for uni-directional LSPs and may support requests
for bi-directional LSPs
7. Section 2.1
The correct expansion of "GMPLS" is "Generalized Multiprotocol
Label Switching". In view of you chosen expansion of "MPLS",
you may prefer to show this as "Generalize Multi Protocol
8. Section 7.2 states:
The CE and PE nodes are inter-connected by point-to-point
interfaces. The signaling channel is "in-band", i.e., the
labeled packets share the same access connection as the
This is an acceptable, but not required, method of deploying
GMPLS-based signaling. It is our suspicion reading this very
short section that it is your intention to forbid the use of
the IF_ID RSVP_HOP Object at the CNI. Can you confirm or deny
9. Section 7.3 states:
A client need only know its own address, a reachable address
of the adjacent PE-node, and know the address of any other
client to which it wishes to connect. The addresses listed
above must be configured on each client.
A PE need only know (and track) the addresses on interfaces
attached to clients, as well as the Node IDs of these
attached clients. In addition, the IP/MPLS network needs to
know reachability to the interface addresses and Node IDs of
other PEs to which an attached client is permitted to
This appears to miss the fact that the client will address a
CNI connection request to a remote client address. The local
PE must, therefore, know how to route to these client
addresses that are outside the core routing domain.
Perhaps the final sentence should say CE not PE?
But in 9.1.2 you have:
When a PE receives a Path message from a client that
contains no ERO indicating transit network selection, then
the PE is responsible for progressing the Path message
toward the destination. The progression of the Path
message is beyond the scope of this specification.
While the details are clearly out of scope, it *is* relevant
to the definition of the CNI how the core acquires and
distributes the client-side addressing information that is
necessary for routing across the core. You will observe that
the problem you are solving (including the fact that the
client addresses may come from an address space that overlaps
with the core address space) is similar to the L3VPN problem.
10. What is the expected behavior from the core network when an
E-LSP is requested at the CNI?
Can we assume that the expectation is that an appropriate
E-LSP will also be established across the core so that
Diffserv behavior will be performed along the whole length
of the client-client connection, or is this not a
If core Diffserv behavior is required, how will the core
handle the presence of multiple classes?
11. You are correct to observe that the ERO is optional in GMPLS
implementations (sections 9.1.1 and 9.1.2), however, since
you are specifying a profile for use at the CNI, and since
both the CE and the PE must be CNI-aware (i.e., you cannot
simply use legacy implementations) you may find it convenient
to mandate support of the ERO at the CNI.
We believe that in practice all implementations support ERO.
12. In section 9.1.1 you have:
The client populates the ERO object with only one sub-object
containing an Autonomous System Number (ASN) representing a
transit network beyond the originating service provider.
The client equipment must set the ASN sub-object 'L' bit to
1, indicating a loose route.
It is not completely clear what is meant by 'the originating
service provider', but we assume that this refers to the
network that the ingress PE belongs to. In this case, this
ERO is malformed and will be rejected. The first sub-object
of a received ERO must always define an abstract node that
the receiver is a member of. See RFC 3209, section 22.214.171.124,
13. In section 9.4:
PE next to a client receives a PathErr with
Path_State_Removed from the network, it may in turn
generate either a ResvTear or PathTear, whichever is
applicable, to be sent to the client.
There are no circumstances in which a PE receiving a PathErr
with Path_State_Removed from the network would send PathTear
to the client.
It is unclear to us why you would specify that the CNI built
on GMPLS might not use this standard GMPLS procedure.
14. In section 9.5.3:
The Extended Classtype object is signaled in the Path
message, and saved in the Path State Block (PSB) at every
We recommend that you simply state that the state is stored
as every hop. The existence of a PSB is implementation-
Can you please clarify "at every hop". Are you expecting
nodes in the core network to store this information. If so,
you should note that the core nodes will not recognize the
object class and will reject any messages carrying it.
15. In 9.5.4:
An LSR that recognizes the Extended Classtype object and
that receives a Path message which contains the Extended
Classtype object but which does not contain a Label Request
object or which does not have a session type of
LSP_Tunnel_IPv4, must send a PathErr message towards the
sender with the error code 'extended-classtype Error' and
an error value of 'Unexpected Extended Classtype object'.
These are defined below:
Why do you define new parsing behavior for the absence of a
Label Request object (by the way, you should say Generalized
Label Request object, since this is GMPLS)? The absence of
mandatory objects is already covered in RFC2205.
16. The error code defined in 9.5.4 is conformant with RFC 3936.
You may wish to look at draft-swallow-rsvp-user-error-spec
in case this gives you the ability to handle more detailed
private error codes.
Finally, we would like to refer you to
draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interwork-fmwk-01.txt for the latest state
discussions in CCAMP with respect to interworking MPLS and GMPLS