Subject: Re: Addressing doc

From: "Diego Caviglia" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 15:00:16 +0200

Some comments/question on the ID.

First all think that this work is very useful in order to understand how
the different implementation of GMPLS interpret the ID/RFC.

I'd like to have, if it is possible, an explanation of the incoming and
outgoing terms, my understanding of that terms is the following one.

            +-------+                     +-------+
            |       |      Path-->        |       |
            |       |=====================|       |=============
            |       |                    /|       |\
            +-------+                   / +-------+ \
                               Incoming/             \OutGoing

I understood from the Lyndon mail that the ID is the result of the ISOCORE
tests, my question, w.r.t. the ERO processing, is: TNEs that implements
option 3 are able to interoperate with TNE that implements option 4?  More
generally was possible to have interworking between the variuos options?

What exactly means the term encapsulating in the following sentence
(section 4.0)
"...
Mandating that TE Router ID be a reachable IP address eliminates the need
of the mentioned above module ? next hop data
plane TE Router ID could be used as a destination for IP packets
encapsulating the LSP setup (RSVP Path) message.
..."

Moreover my understunding is that LMP can be the module that manages, on a
hop by-hop basis of course, control plane/data plane address binding; why
LMP is not referenced by the ID?  IMHO LMP is an important part of the
GMPLS protocols suite.

Regards

Diego

---

From: "Rajiv Papneja" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 10:22:47 -0400

Hi Diego,
 Please see inline

/Rajiv

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Diego Caviglia [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 9:00 AM
> To: ccamp
> Subject: Re: Addressing doc
>
>
This is the correct understanding.

> generally was possible to have interworking between the variuos options?

Typically we have used one or the other kind options defined
during the tests. This eliminates the confusion of interpretations.

> of the mentioned above module ?
Please see the first paragraph of Section 4. See also Igor's message:
https://psg.com/lists/ccamp/ccamp.2005/msg00381.html.
"  Generally speaking there is a need for a module/protocol that discovers
and manages control plane/data plane address bindings for the address spaces
to be completely separated.  In this case, the TE Router ID could be just a
network unique number.  Mandating that TE Router ID be a reachable IP
address eliminates the need of the mentioned above module ・the next hop
data plane TE Router ID could be used as a destination for IP packets
encapsulating the LSP setup (RSVP Path) message.  Note that every TE
link ID could always be resolved to the link originating TE Router
ID."

> next hop data
IP Packet that carries the RSVP-TE message.
> LMP is not referenced by the ID?  IMHO LMP is an important part of the
We do not mean to exclude LMP. We'll add words to that effect.