RE: working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-p2mp-05.txt

["Zafar Ali \(zali\)" <zali@cisco.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Yakov Rekhter
> Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 11:35 AM
> To: Loa Andersson
> Cc: mpls@ietf.org; ccamp; George Swallow (swallow); Adrian 
> Farrel; Deborah Brungard; Ross Callon; Bill Fenner
> Subject: Re: working group last call on 
> draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-p2mp-05.txt 
> 
> Loa and George,
> 
> > Working Group,
> > 
> > this initiates a two week working group last call on 
> > draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-p2mp-05.txt
> > 
> > please send comments to the MPLS working group mailling list and/or 
> > working co-chairs.
> > 
> > The last call ends eob May 28th.
> > 
> > The ccamp mailing list copied as this is a work that has an overlap 
> > between the working groups.
> > 
> > Loa and George
> 
> Few observations and suggestions...
> 
> (a) <Ingress LSR IP address, P2MP ID> tuple is both necessary 
> and sufficient to unambiguously identify a P2MP Tunnel.
> 

Yakov, et al

I would ask to add extended tunnel ID as part of this, unless we force
is to be equal to the Ingress LSR IP address (at least in P2MP draft),
as suggested by George. 

> (b) Further <Ingress LSR IP address, P2MP ID, LSP ID> is both 
> necessary and sufficient to identify a P2MP LSP.

Following the above comment, a FEC for P2MP is identified by <Ingress
LSR IP address, P2MP ID, LSP ID, extended tunnel ID>. 

Thanks

Regards... Zafar 

> 
> Therefore I would suggest that draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-p2mp-05.txt
> should say the following:
> 
> 1. A P2MP tunnel is identified by a tuple <root node IP address,
> index>, where the index value is unique within the scope of the IP
> address of the root node.  The P2MP tunnel identifier <root 
> node IP address, index> is unique within the same scope as 
> the root node IP address.
> 
> 2. Both the Extended Tunnel ID and the Tunnel Sender Address 
> fields carry the root node IP address (both fields carry the 
> same value).
> The index is carried in the P2MP ID.
> 
> 3. Tunnel ID field should be set to all zeros, and be ignored 
> on receipt.
> 
> 4. A P2MP LSP is identified by a combination of tunnel 
> identifier (<root node IP address, index>), and LSP ID.
> 
> With this in mind sections 4.1, 4.2, 19.1 and 19.2 should be 
> modified to clarify the following:
> 
> (a) SESSION identifier;
> (b) semantics of Extended Tunnel ID; semantics of the P2MP ID;
> (c) semantics of the Tunnel ID IP address in the SENDER_TEMPLATE.
> 
> Yakov.
>