Hi,
I am not sure any more
how we got into this discussion, but I am pretty much convinced that this does
not relate to the GMPLS context.
The question was on the
adoption of the draft on GMPLS for a data plane that is defined by the IEEE
(802.1Qay). This is the way it is defined by the IEEE and we provide a control
plane to control it. I am pretty sure that the use of the control plane for
PBB-TE will ensure a consistent behavior of the PBB-TE network.
Personally I am in favor
of making this draft an IETF one, and I hope you are all as well.
Best regards,
Nurit
From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext Igor Bryskin
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008
18:13
To: Attila Takacs; Don Fedyk;
neil.2.harrison@bt.com; adrian@olddog.co.uk; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: Continued Poll for
Adoption of Ethernet I-Ds
Hi Attila,
Please, see in line.
----- Original Message ----
From: Attila Takacs <Attila.Takacs@ericsson.com>
To: Igor Bryskin <i_bryskin@yahoo.com>; Don Fedyk
<dwfedyk@nortel.com>; neil.2.harrison@bt.com; adrian@olddog.co.uk; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 2:54:21 AM
Subject: RE: Continued Poll for Adoption of Ethernet I-Ds
But how the separation of VLAN ID space would help in
this case? If PBB packets are leaked into PBB-TE they will be immediately
dropped because there will be no PBB-TE connections configured for such
packets. If PBB-TE packets are leaked into PBB, than, since, PBB knows nothing
about PBB-TE anyway the packets will be flooded across the PBB domain.
Unfortunately, leaking
from PBB to PBB-TE does not necessarily means immediate discarding of PBB
frames. Due to the VLAN separation between PBB and PBB-TE, there is no
clear layering here. Hence leaking can essentially mean that the VID of a
bridged (PBB) frame is changed to a VID used for explicitly
routed connections (PBB-TE). This does not necessarily means that the
frame will be dropped. It is a valid assumption that the MAC address of the PBB
frame is configured in the PBB-TE region as well and as such leakig PBB traffic
will be forwarded as if it would belong to an explicitly routed
connection.
IB>> In order for a packet, leaking from PBB to PBB_TE not be dropped, it
is necessary for the triplet from PBB MAC header (SA-DA-VID) to match one of
configured on the node PBB-TE connections. Even if one assumes that this is
possible, it is highly unlikely to be the case on the next along the connection
PBB-TE node. Hence the packet will be dropped either immediately or on the next
PBB-TE node.
Cheers,
Igor
Note that what I just wrote is true regardless whether
PBB-TE uses specially allocated ranges of VLANIDs or all VLANIDs. Hence there
is no architectural need for the VLANID space separation.
I think this is not
necessary true, if one allocates the whole VLAN space to PBB-TE then there will
be no bridged traffic in the network. As a consequence no leaking and no other
cross effects is to be expected.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
|