Subject: [PWE3] re: draft-bryant-pwe3-mpls-transport-00.txt

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 16:49:24 -0000

Stewart, 

Interesting suggestions on MPLS transport. As you are going to discuss
it this week we thought that you may wish to take the following into
consideration.

First of all, a major requirement for network operators is backward
compatability with existing RFC's and reuse of widely installed base.
These probably outweigh any other considerations. 

An application that is of interest is how to transport the MPLS network
of one operator (A) over the transport network of another (B), rather
than by means of peering.  By this I mean provide MPLS transport between
LSR A1 and A2 of operator A over an MPLS network of B. This might occur
for example in international networks where operator A requires an
in-country transport capability from B.

This supports an operational requirement that many operators apply in
practise, namely, isolation of the control plane of network A from that
of network B. This can be for a number of reasons including scalability
and security. As such it is not possible for operator A to mandate the
control plane that should be used by B, rather A is only interested in
the service offered by B. Therefore I would suggest that how B provides
its control plane is not a primary requirement.
 
One mechanism for providing isolation is to provide a common "shim"
technology such as ethernet. This isolates the two forwarding stacks. An
alternative would be to consider a suitable PW. Another option would be
to continue the label stack, although there may be considerations
regarding misconnectivity. 

If operator B is to provide a managed bandwidth service to A then the
profile for the forwarding plane could be as you suggest in this draft. 

regards, Neil

_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3

---

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 18:33:29 -0800

Neil,

> regarding misconnectivity. 

Since you view the reuse of widely installed base as a major
requirement, which of the three options you mentioned above meet
this requirement ?

Yakov.