Subject: [PWE3] Working group last call and IPR call for dynamic Multi-Segment PW drafts

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 09:09:34 +0300

PWE3ers,

This begins a two-week working group last call for
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-15 and
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pwe3-mspw-er-01 . Please send
comments on these two drafts by replying to this message and including
the pwe3 list. The chairs would appreciate indications that the drafts
have been read and agreement that they are ready to send to the IESG,
even if you don't have other comments.

Coincidentally, we are also polling for knowledge of any IPR that
applies to these drafts, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in
compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for
more details).

If you are listed as a document author or contributor please respond
to this email whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. The
drafts will not be forwarded to the IESG until a response has been
received from each author and contributor.

If you are on the PWE3 WG email list but are not listed as an author
or contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware
of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF
rules.

Note that there have already been two IPR disclosures on
draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw, #998 and #1810. These do not need to be
re-disclosed.

This WG last call will conclude on 12 September 2012.

Thanks,
Andy

On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> All,
>
> The following two drafts related to dynamic Multi-Segment PWs have recently
> been updated:
>
> draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-15.txt
> draft-ietf-pwe3-mspw-er-01.txt
>
> Speaking as a co-author, the technical content of these drafts has been
> relatively stable for a long time. These drafts have been developed in the
> working group over many years.
>
> I think these are now ready for working group last call.
>
> Regards
> Matthew

---

From: "Henderickx, Wim (Wim)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 08:13:28 +0200

Ok to be sent to IESG
Not aware of IPR

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Andrew G. Malis
Sent: woensdag 29 augustus 2012 8:10
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [PWE3] Working group last call and IPR call for dynamic Multi-Segment PW drafts

PWE3ers,

Thanks,
Andy

> I think these are now ready for working group last call.
_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3

---

From: "Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 15:40:40 +0200

I am not aware of any IPR that has not be declared already.

Matthew

---

From: Yaakov Stein <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 06:43:00 +0000

These drafts are the logical outcome of making the PWE architecture
into a full-blown (layer) network, and were thus inevitable.
You can't define a network with addressing and switching
and never define the routing protocols to use it.

So I definitely support the concept.

However, I am a bit confused about some aspects.

In draft-ietf-pwe3-dynamic-ms-pw-15 I read the following statement :
   In the SS-PW case the PW QoS requirements may easily be met by
   selecting a MPLS PSN tunnel at the S-PE that meets the PW QoS
   requirements.

Is this true ?
In the present SS-PW architecture I can indeed TE the MPLS tunnel,
but unless I only place a single PW in that tunnel
there is no way of reserving BW for a particular PW.
Yes, you can place a single PW into each tunnel,
but the whole idea of the PWE architecture was to enable scaling by NOT doing that
(not to mention making it redundant to use 2 labels)
and that is not what is implied in Figure 1.

And what is the solution suggested here ?
A new "MS-PW Bandwidth Signalling" TLV with TSPECs for each direction.
How is this TLV used ?
   In the forward direction, after a next hop selection is determined, a
   T/S-PE SHOULD reference the forward SENDER_TSPEC object to determine
   an appropriate PSN tunnel towards the next signaling hop.
Yes, that makes sense. But then
   When an S/T-PE receives a PW Bandwidth TLV, once the PW next hop is
   selected, the S/T-PE MUST request the appropriate resources from the PSN.  
How do we request resources for a particular PW in a tunnel ?
And if I am doing this, why can't I do it for the SS-PW case?
Can I define a MS-PW for the particular case of 1 segment and reserve BW for the PW ?

Add to that the explicit routes in the other draft,
and I am starting to smell something I remember from a while back
(and I like the smell).
However, if this is the way we are going,
I would prefer to have the aroma come in through the front door,
rather than the kitchen window.

Y(J)S