Re: Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-rsvp-te-call-00.txt

["Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>]

Ben,

Sorry for the delay while travelling, etc.

> Hi Adrian,
>
> There were also these comments which have not been fully addressed
> afaik:
>
> > > 3)  The network models being used in section 4.3 and section 7 are
> > > not clear.  In particular the relationships between the call
> > > controllers, network boundaries, ingress/egress nodes, and
> > > ingress/egress links are not clear.  Figures would be very helpful
> > here.
> >
> > Figures are always helpful, and usually (but not always) better than
> > words.
> >
> > In order to be sure to clarify the network models that you are finding
> > confusing, it would be helpful if you asked specific questions or
> > roposed text.
>
> It is not clear how the form of initiation of a call affects the
> information available about the egress link. In part this may be
> affected by whether the ingress node is inside or outside the network
> (IGP) boundary.  It would seem that the situation at the egress would
> have something to do with this as well.  It is unclear where the egress
> trail termination point is expected to be, e.g. inside or outside the
> network boundary, and, if inside, at the near or far side of the egress
> node's matrix.

You have latched on to an important point. The information about the egress 
link might not be generally available within the TED particularly when the 
egress node is outside the TE domain (although we should observe some of the 
recent discussions about OSPF and BGP extensions for advertising PE-CE link 
TE capabilities).

And, in fact, this is an important purpose of the Call, and why the Link 
Capability object exists. The Link Capability object may be used
when the tail-end is within or outside the the TE domain, and so we support 
the egress (and correspondingly the ingress) being inside or outside the TE 
domain. This follows quite naturally from RFC 4208.

We could add a statement that the ingress and egress may be inside or 
outside the TE domain if this will make you more comfortable.

> > >5)       The call control mechanism defined appears to support
> > > only IPv4 or IPv6 addressed endpoints from a single address
> > > space.  Is this correct?
> >
> >  I don't think so.
>
> I would be interested to know how to correctly understand the draft.
> That is, what addressing other than IPv4/6 is supported, and how
> multiple address spaces are supported.

Hmmm. Perhaps an issue of punctuation in your original question?

Yes: we only support IPv4 or IPv6 addresses.
No: we don't require the use of a single address space, as discussed in RFC 
4208.

Hope that answers for you.

Regards,
Adrian