RE: draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbt-00.txt

["Don Fedyk" <dwfedyk@nortel.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Igor Bryskin
>
> Thanks Don,
> 
> See in-line.
> 
> Igor
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Don Fedyk" <dwfedyk@nortel.com>
> 
<snip>
> 
> So you have two questions: Do we need Auto-discovery; and if so should
> it be IGP based or BGP based.
> In the simple mode we have specified so far MAC Learning on 
> the edge is
> all we need.  So no auto discovery.
> 
> 
> IB>> Well, MAC Learning tells edge switch which port an 
> Ethernet packet
> destined to a particular D-MAC should be sent out. However, 
> it does not tell
> the TE name of the edge switch (on the opposite side of the network)
> supporting this D-MAC. So how the ingress switch can tell (without
> auto-discovery or configuration) which of (new or existing) 
> Eth-LSPs could
> be used for the packet forwarding?
> 
> Thanks,
> Igor
> 
To be clear on this the association is made statically up front in the
current document. No new Eth-LSPs are set up due to the arrival of an
new D-MAC. There is a static binding of a Customer Port to a Ethernet
LSP. There is a static binding of the Eth-LSP to a destination switch.
At the ingress provider node and a destination provider node typically a
PW identifier or a PPB I-SID is used to mux/demux the packet on the
Eth-LSP. You could also have a dedicated Eth-LSP with no multiplexer.

Regards,
Don 

(text below is consistent with this if we do what you are alluding to in
the future)

> However if we ever get to on demand
> signaling on the connections from the customer space then an auto
> discovery function would be desirable.
> 
> As to IGP or BGP, very similar to the L1VPN case. We have discussed
> keeping the Optical code base and the Ethernet code base development
> based on the same architecture.  I don't see much difference here we
> could develop either it depends on customer demand for such a feature.
> Currently out of scope for us.
> 
> Regards,
> Don
> 
> >
> > It would be good if your draft would provide some of your
> > views on such mechanism and, more generally, on which routing
> > protocols should be supported by GMPLS controllers managing
> > Ethernet switches. Obviously, IGP-TE is going to be required
> > to enable path computation. But how about BGP?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Igor
> >
> <snip>
> 
> 
> 
>