Subject: VLAN label range requirement

From: "Stephen Shew" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 11:44:13 -0400

In yesterday's meeting, there was a request for more information on the
VLAN label range requirement.  From the original OIF liaison, the
description was:
"We are investigating label formats to represent a list or range of
VLAN identifiers, as used in MEF.11 bundling. In the case where a large
number of non-consecutive VLAN identifiers is used for the same
connection, we would like to keep the label to a reasonable size."

The requirement to send a range of VLAN identifiers in signalling arises
in the bundling feature in Ethernet services as specified in Metro
Ethernet Forum (MEF) and ITU-T SG15 documents.  In the MEF, the MEF.11
spec "User Network Interface (UNI) Requirements and Framework" there is
a UNI service attribute called "bundling" that is described as "A UNI
attribute in which more than one CE-VLAN ID is associated with an EVC."
It is more fully described in MEF.10 "Ethernet Services Attributes Phase
1".  Both technical specs may be obtained free at:
http://www.metroethernetforum.org/TechSpec.htm

Equivalent ITU-T Recs. are G.8011, G8011.1, and G.8011.2.  These are
available to ITU-T members, or under a "3 free" capability on the ITU-T
website.

Of interest is the MEF Ethernet Link Management Interface (E-LMI)
defined in MEF.16 that has an encoding for passing VLAN ranges between
the UNI client and network.  This in a structure called the "CE-VLAN
ID/EVC Map information element".

I hope this provides more clarity to the VLAN label range issue.

Stephen Shew
Metro Ethernet Networks
Nortel
[email-masked]
Telephone: +1 613 763 2462 / ESN 393 2462

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 23:41:52 +0100

Thanks Stephen.

What is your opinion of the response to this question that CCAMP supplied in 
its return communication to the OIF?

Adrian
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stephen Shew" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 4:44 PM
Subject: VLAN label range requirement

Stephen Shew
Metro Ethernet Networks
Nortel
[email-masked]

---

From: "Stephen Shew" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 23:09:22 -0400

You're welcome.

The response from CCAMP on this question is very thorough, and I
certainly appreciate the thought that went into it.  My interpretation
of the response is that that CCAMP encourages the OIF to design an
encoding for the VLAN identifiers, and communicate it back to CCAMP.

Stephen 

-----Original Message-----
From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: July 11, 2006 18:42
To: Shew, Stephen (CAR:Q840); [email-masked]
Subject: Re: VLAN label range requirement

Thanks Stephen.

What is your opinion of the response to this question that CCAMP
supplied in its return communication to the OIF?

Adrian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Shew" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 4:44 PM
Subject: VLAN label range requirement

Stephen Shew
Metro Ethernet Networks
Nortel
[email-masked]

---

From: "Ong, Lyndon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 08:30:48 -0400

That was my interpretation also, not sure if that
came through on the slides.

Lyndon 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Stephen Shew
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 8:09 PM
To: Adrian Farrel; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: VLAN label range requirement

You're welcome.

Stephen 

-----Original Message-----
From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: July 11, 2006 18:42
To: Shew, Stephen (CAR:Q840); [email-masked]
Subject: Re: VLAN label range requirement

Thanks Stephen.

Adrian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Shew" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 4:44 PM
Subject: VLAN label range requirement

In yesterday's meeting, there was a request for more information on the
VLAN label range requirement.  From the original OIF liaison, the
description was:
"We are investigating label formats to represent a list or range of VLAN
identifiers, as used in MEF.11 bundling. In the case where a large
number of non-consecutive VLAN identifiers is used for the same
connection, we would like to keep the label to a reasonable size."

Stephen Shew
Metro Ethernet Networks
Nortel
[email-masked]

---

From: dimitri papadimitriou <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 15:32:35 +0200

lyndon -

listing a set of labels as part of the response is something already 
covered in GMPLS

hence if i well understand the MEF.10 document the information elements 
that needs to be considered is quite straightforward

so do we need this loop back and forth ? why not just produce a 2 page 
doc and close this ?

thx,
- d.

Ong, Lyndon wrote:

> .

---

From: "Ong, Lyndon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 09:41:22 -0400

Sure, I understand.  I think the concern that was expressed at the last
OIF
meeting was whether we might need to define an efficient way of
describing
a set consisting of a very large set of labels, since the range of VLAN
tags,
for example, is quite a bit larger than the typical set of labels
assumed for
optical switches.  If OIF comes up with 
any proposals along those lines, it would then liaise this to CCAMP for
its
consideration.

Cheers,

Lyndon 

-----Original Message-----
From: dimitri papadimitriou [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 6:33 AM
To: Ong, Lyndon
Cc: Stephen Shew; Adrian Farrel; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: VLAN label range requirement

lyndon -

thx,
- d.

Ong, Lyndon wrote:

> That was my interpretation also, not sure if that came through on the 
> slides.
> 
> Lyndon
> 

> In yesterday's meeting, there was a request for more information on 
> the VLAN label range requirement.  From the original OIF liaison, the 
> description was:
> VLAN identifiers, as used in MEF.11 bundling. In the case where a 
> large number of non-consecutive VLAN identifiers is used for the same 
> The requirement to send a range of VLAN identifiers in signalling 
> arises in the bundling feature in Ethernet services as specified in 
> Metro Ethernet Forum (MEF) and ITU-T SG15 documents.  In the MEF, the 
> MEF.11 spec "User Network Interface (UNI) Requirements and Framework" 
> there is a UNI service attribute called "bundling" that is described 
> as "A UNI attribute in which more than one CE-VLAN ID is associated
with an EVC."
> It is more fully described in MEF.10 "Ethernet Services Attributes 
> Phase 1".  Both technical specs may be obtained free at:
> available to ITU-T members, or under a "3 free" capability on the 
> ITU-T website.
>

---

From: dimitri papadimitriou <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 15:52:49 +0200

lyndon

- not sure to understand - the information part of the liaison question 
was "how large is large" ?

eg. RFC 3946 support VC4-256v did you ever ask the question whether we 
have an efficient encoding ?

---

From: "Ong, Lyndon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 10:51:53 -0400

Hi dimitri,

No, that's a fair point - in practice we have been testing up to 21v,
had not looked into the ability to signal 256v.

I suppose if you did have a co-routed 256v this would require
256 32-bit SUKLM values, for 1024 bytes.

The issue with VLAN IDs came about when someone calculated that
4094 12 bit VLAN IDs would consume 6144 bytes worth of message
(or 5 messages) if you just sent each VLAN ID without compressing this.

Lyndon

-----Original Message-----
From: dimitri papadimitriou [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 6:53 AM
To: Ong, Lyndon
Cc: [email-masked]; Stephen Shew; Adrian Farrel;
[email-masked]

lyndon

---

From: "Stephen Shew" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 21:53:41 -0400

The size of the range has more to do with the total number of VLANs that
have to be mapped.  In theory, all 1024 could be mapped (between client
and network at the UNI) and also in the other direction.  Further, the
mapping at the egress UNI has to be carried (again for both directions),
so the max size could be 4k.

-----Original Message-----
From: dimitri papadimitriou [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: July 12, 2006 09:53
To: Ong, Lyndon
Cc: [email-masked]; Shew, Stephen (CAR:Q840); Adrian
Farrel; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: VLAN label range requirement

lyndon