Sure, I understand. I think the concern that was expressed at the last
OIF
meeting was whether we might need to define an efficient way of
describing
a set consisting of a very large set of labels, since the range of VLAN
tags,
for example, is quite a bit larger than the typical set of labels
assumed for
optical switches. If OIF comes up with
any proposals along those lines, it would then liaise this to CCAMP for
its
consideration.
Cheers,
Lyndon
-----Original Message-----
From: dimitri papadimitriou [mailto:dpapadimitriou@psg.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 6:33 AM
To: Ong, Lyndon
Cc: Stephen Shew; Adrian Farrel; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: VLAN label range requirement
lyndon -
listing a set of labels as part of the response is something already
covered in GMPLS
hence if i well understand the MEF.10 document the information elements
that needs to be considered is quite straightforward
so do we need this loop back and forth ? why not just produce a 2 page
doc and close this ?
thx,
- d.
Ong, Lyndon wrote:
That was my interpretation also, not sure if that came through on the
slides.
Lyndon
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Stephen Shew
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 8:09 PM
To: Adrian Farrel; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: VLAN label range requirement
You're welcome.
The response from CCAMP on this question is very thorough, and I
certainly appreciate the thought that went into it. My interpretation
of the response is that that CCAMP encourages the OIF to design an
encoding for the VLAN identifiers, and communicate it back to CCAMP.
Stephen
-----Original Message-----
From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk]
Sent: July 11, 2006 18:42
To: Shew, Stephen (CAR:Q840); ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: VLAN label range requirement
Thanks Stephen.
What is your opinion of the response to this question that CCAMP
supplied in its return communication to the OIF?
Adrian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Shew" <sdshew@nortel.com>
To: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 4:44 PM
Subject: VLAN label range requirement
In yesterday's meeting, there was a request for more information on
the VLAN label range requirement. From the original OIF liaison, the
description was:
"We are investigating label formats to represent a list or range of
VLAN identifiers, as used in MEF.11 bundling. In the case where a
large number of non-consecutive VLAN identifiers is used for the same
connection, we would like to keep the label to a reasonable size."
The requirement to send a range of VLAN identifiers in signalling
arises in the bundling feature in Ethernet services as specified in
Metro Ethernet Forum (MEF) and ITU-T SG15 documents. In the MEF, the
MEF.11 spec "User Network Interface (UNI) Requirements and Framework"
there is a UNI service attribute called "bundling" that is described
as "A UNI attribute in which more than one CE-VLAN ID is associated
with an EVC."
It is more fully described in MEF.10 "Ethernet Services Attributes
Phase 1". Both technical specs may be obtained free at:
http://www.metroethernetforum.org/TechSpec.htm
Equivalent ITU-T Recs. are G.8011, G8011.1, and G.8011.2. These are
available to ITU-T members, or under a "3 free" capability on the
ITU-T website.
Of interest is the MEF Ethernet Link Management Interface (E-LMI)
defined in MEF.16 that has an encoding for passing VLAN ranges between
the UNI client and network. This in a structure called the "CE-VLAN
ID/EVC Map information element".
I hope this provides more clarity to the VLAN label range issue.
Stephen Shew
Metro Ethernet Networks
Nortel
sdshew@nortel.com
Telephone: +1 613 763 2462 / ESN 393 2462
.
.