Subject: [tsvwg] draft-saldana-tsvwg-tcmtf and MPLS: asking for feedback

From: FERNANDO PASCUAL BLANCO <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 11:58:56 +0000

Hello all,

                I´m interested in TCMTF because I think it could improve network efficiency, and mainly in network operators. I would like to propose a different tunneling method: MPLS.

                Many network operators use MPLS in their networks, that basically are network clouds composed by edge routers (LERs) and switch routers (LSRs). When an unlabeled packet enters the ingress router, the router first determines the MPLS tunnel the packet should be in and then inserts one or more labels in the MPLS header (between level 2 and level 3). LSRs only have to evaluate the MPLS label to determine the next hop within the MPLS cloud. That means that several flows can share an MPLS tunnel identified by a label.

                My understanding is that MPLS could be considered as a tunneling method in some TCMTF scenarios (MPLS tunnels should be used by packets with similar delay requirements). Note that the protocol stack could be:

·         ROHC (compression)

·         PPP-Mux (multiplexing)

·         MPLS (tunnel)

·         Ethernet

IP and L2TP (or GRE) headers (to maintain the tunnel) could be suppressed and payload versus header efficiency could be increased.

What do you think about it?

Regards,

Fernando

________________________________

Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace situado más abajo.
This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at.
http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx

---

From: "Jose Saldana" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 11:04:21 +0200

Fernando,

Just a preliminary answer. I have commented your proposal with some people,
and I think it is very interesting. Many carriers and service providers have
MPLS networks, so it could be good if the draft also included it as an
option for the tunneling part. Nevertheless, we have to study it more, in
order to think about all the issues that could arise if we include that
option.

Thanks for the proposal,

Jose

De: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] En nombre de
FERNANDO PASCUAL BLANCO
Enviado el: miércoles, 27 de junio de 2012 13:59
Para: [email-masked]
Asunto: [tsvwg] draft-saldana-tsvwg-tcmtf and MPLS: asking for feedback

Hello all,

                I´m interested in TCMTF because I think it could improve
network efficiency, and mainly in network operators. I would like to propose
a different tunneling method: MPLS.

                Many network operators use MPLS in their networks, that
basically are network clouds composed by edge routers (LERs) and switch
routers (LSRs). When an unlabeled packet enters the ingress router, the
router first determines the MPLS tunnel the packet should be in and then
inserts one or more labels in the MPLS header (between level 2 and level 3).
LSRs only have to evaluate the MPLS label to determine the next hop within
the MPLS cloud. That means that several flows can share an MPLS tunnel
identified by a label.

                My understanding is that MPLS could be considered as a
tunneling method in some TCMTF scenarios (MPLS tunnels should be used by
packets with similar delay requirements). Note that the protocol stack could
be:

·         ROHC (compression)

·         PPP-Mux (multiplexing)

·         MPLS (tunnel)

·         Ethernet

IP and L2TP (or GRE) headers (to maintain the tunnel) could be suppressed
and payload versus header efficiency could be increased.

Regards,

Fernando

  _____  

Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar
nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace
situado más abajo.
This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and
receive email on the basis of the terms set out at.
http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx