[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Fw: liaison response to to IETF ccamp WG on MFA Forum MPLS CNI
We have received the attached liaison from the MFA.
I expect it will be posted on the IETF web site in due course. In the mean
time, you can find it at www.olddog.co.uk/ccamp.htm
The liaison does not ask for any action from us, but we may want to review
the new specification and comment on it.
----- Original Message -----
From: "J. Rao Cherukuri" <email@example.com>
To: <IAB@ietf.org>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>;
Cc: "David Sinicrope (RL/TNT)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>;
<email@example.com>; "BOCCI Matthew"
<Matthew.Bocci@alcatel-lucent.co.uk>; "Ross Callon" <firstname.lastname@example.org>;
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 8:34 PM
Subject: liaison response to to IETF ccamp WG on MFA Forum MPLS CNI
Hi Adrian, Deborah,
Thank you and the CCAMP WG for providing such thorough and valuable
comments. We have reviewed and incorporated many of them into the CNI
document. There are a few that we have not incorporated for various
reasons. We have provided the rationale for these decisions inline
Please let us know if you have any questions or concerns.
David Sinicrope AD Working Group Chair
Rao Cherukuri TC Chair
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
to make more sense to define a standardized extension to the protocol.
MFAF> At the time of development of our specification draft-andersson
was not adopted by IETF. Also, the Multi Class specification wasn't in
a state where we could refer to it. Consequently, we chose to use the
vendor private TLV to expedite completion of our document. In
subsequent revisions of the CNI we will consider following
draft-andersson and obtaining a standard Multi Class TLV.
Should you decide that a standardized extension is better able to
deliver the functionality that you require, we should like to draw your
attention to draft-andersson-rtg-gmpls-change-06.txt that defines how
other SDOs may influence the development of MPLS and GMPLS protocols
within the IETF, and which is currently in IETF last call. The (G)MPLS
suites of protocols have become popular among multiple SDOs resulting in
a need for IETF to clarify its role as the responsible SDO for (G)MPLS
protocol extensions so as to prevent unnecessary replication of
functionality and the resulting interoperability problems.
1. The document is marked as Straw Ballot Text. Can you tell us
what that means the status of the work is?
MFAF> Review is completed and document is in "last call".
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.
MFAF> We have gone through the document and reflected your suggestions
in the text.
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
MFAF> We have reflected this suggestion in the text of section 1.2.
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
MFAF> To facilitate use of bi-direction LSPs and to leverage existing
implementations of the standard.
We have reflected this rationale in the text of section 1.2.
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?
MFAF>We assume that the core is PSC only. The CNI is implemented at the
edge of the network.
Details of the core network beyond what is stated in section 1.3 are
beyond the scope of the CNI.
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
MFAF> In section 1.3 we state that the core has support for a minimum
set of GMPLS capabilities.
e.g., bidirectional LSP support, traffic engineering QoS capabilities.
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 "Generalized Multi Protocol
The correct expansion of "FEC" is "Forwarding Equivalence
MFAF> We have reflected this suggestion in the text. See the Acronyms
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
MFAF> At our last meeting in Chicago we decided to allow the use of the
IF_ID_RSVP_HOP as an option. See section 7.2.
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.
MFAF> We corrected the text to address this issue in section 7.3.
Also see the changes in section 9.1.2.
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?
MFAF>This is assumed and although how it is done is beyond the
scope of the specification, section 7.4.1 now states what is expected of
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.
MFAF> We still do not mandate ERO because there was no agreement
within the MFAF TC to mandate it. See changes made in 9.1.2.
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 18.104.22.168,
MFAF> We reflected this in section 9.1.1.
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.
MFAF>We reflected this in section 9.4.
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.
We also suggest that before progressing your own extensions
for multi-class DSTE LSPs you should look at the existing
work within the IETF:
If this work is not adequate for your requirements, we
would encourage you to work with its authors to produce
a single standardized solution within the IETF.
MFAF>We removed all references to PSB, and all reference to "at every
This better aligns with our scope of not specifying the network
See section 9.5.3.
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.
MFAF> We removed the reference to "the absence of (Generalized) Label
This implies that if the Generalized Label Request object is missing,
the relevant procedures of RFC 2205 will
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.
MFAF> In our specifications we are limited to referring only to
that have been progressed to the RFC editor queue and beyond. We will
consider reference to draft-swallow-rsvp-user-error-spec in future
revisions of the CNI.
Finally, we would like to refer you to
draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interwork-fmwk-01.txt for the latest state
of discussions in CCAMP with respect to interworking MPLS and GMPLS
MFAF> Thanks for pointing out these documents. We will consider these
should our work
scope be expanded to include details of the core network and MPLS and