The MPLS WG Archive

[Shahram Davari <Shahram_Davari@pmc-sierra.com>]

Ajay,


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ajay Simha [mailto:asimha@cisco.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 10:23 AM
> To: neil.2.harrison@bt.com
> Cc: mpls@UU.NET; ppvpn@ppvpn.francetelecom.com
> Subject: RE: Basic LDP Question
> 
> 
> On Mon, 3 Jun 2002 neil.2.harrison@bt.com wrote:
> 
> >:Ajay,  Let me take you back to the point of Shahram's orginal
> >:question.....which in essence, if I have understood it 
> correctly, was 'what
> >:problem/application is LDP solving/addressing that cannot 
> be done either (i)
> >:using IP directly or (ii) ER LSPs?'.....and which must also 
> take a wider
> >:pro/con analysis of the implications of using LDP-LSPs vs 
> ER-LSPs (or IP
> >:directly).
> >:
> >:Please also see below.   Regards, Neil
> >:
> >:Ajay Simha wrote 01 June 2002 04:15
> >:
> >:> The point is MPLS effectively decouples the forwarding
> >:> portion from the
> >:> routing.
> >:NH=> Well I agree, this is vital and it's what is needed.  And it's
> >:something we in Telco-land have known/used for years, ie 
> decoupling of the
> >:traffic carrying data-plane and its control-plane (both its 
> own data-plane,
> >:where appropriate, and its routing and signalling 
> protocols).  But LDP does
> >:nothing more than instantiate labels per hop that are 
> locked to the IGP.
> >:That is (i) they take the same SPF routes as the IGP would 
> use for IP
> >:fowarding and (ii) the LSPs change as the IGP changes.  I 
> would argue this
> >:is not a required behaviour for applications where LSPs are 
> long-holding
> >:and/or must not be affected by ad hoc routing changes or 
> failures of routing
> >:protocols (eg VPNs).  Further, because LDP is so tightly 
> coupled to the IGP
> >:then one has to introduce 'layer violations' to make it 
> work a bit better,
> >:eg Load-balancing using IP-level hashing......its hard to 
> take seriously
> >:anyone claiming this is MPLS label forwarding when one has 
> to look at the
> >:client/IP level (which it may not always be, ie XoverMPLS) to make
> >:switching/forwarding decisions.
> >:
> >:> This makes MPLS a service enabler.
> >:NH=> I don't agree that *LDP* makes MPLS a 
> 'service-enabler'.  Considered
> >:against a VPN service, the behaviour noted above is not 
> what is needed.  Now
> >:take the fact that QoS (a pkt forwarding attribute) and 
> survivability (an
> >:LSP attribute) need decoupling so that per VPN 
> QoS/availability SLAs can be
> >:defined/measured (independent of other VPNs) and look what 
> LDP does to
> >:that.....it mangles then both so they can't be decoupled, 
> and now VPN
> >:QoS/survivability behaviour is no longer independent on a 
> per VPN basis.
> >:Again this is not the required behaviour for VPNs.
> 
> I'll have to disagree here. Let us take L3VPNs for instance. 
> If you run LDP,
> you can add PEs dynamically without having to go an creat 
> some tunnel between
> this PE and all other PEs. If you use IP for this every time 
> you have a new PE
> you'll have to create end to end tunnels so that the 
> mid-points don't drop the
> packet because they have no earthly idea how  this private 
> address on the
> packet should be routed.


I think you have misunderstood the point. What I/Neil were suggesting was
keeping the inner label and using IP header instead of the top MPLS
label. There is no tunnel to be created (IP is cnls) and PEs can be added dynamically.

-Shahram

> 
> -ajay
> 
> >:
> >:> For instance I
> >:> did not see anyone
> >:> mention things like QoS transparency that MPLS can achieve.
> >:NH=> How can you claim this in view of the above 
> observations?  Further, on
> >:what basis are you discussing QoS?  That is, unless you can 
> automatically
> >:fault-manage MPLS I fail to see how anyone has any basis on 
> which to discuss
> >:QoS with any conviction......you have to define 
> availability 1st, since QoS
> >:metrics *only* have relevance to the up-state, and 
> availability is dependent
> >:of having defects defined.  So where are the defects 
> defined and where is
> >:availability defined?....once you can point at these then we can
> >:meaningfully discuss QoS, but not before.
> >:
> >:> Sure you can
> >:> monkey around with IP to make IP have everything that MPLS
> >:> has.
> >:NH=> No, you have to monkey around with LDP (eg 
> load-balancing) because it
> >:does not provide sufficient decoupling from IP behaviour as 
> I noted above.
> >:
> >:> May be even a
> >:> fixed length tag and call it something else :).
> >:>
> >:> Why do it when this extension already exists as an IETF based
> >:> standards where
> >:> folks like us can debate issues and come up with solutions
> >:> that are acceptable
> >:> to most?
> >:NH=> I have no problems with people defining solution's for 
> a restricted
> >:perspective of the problem-space if that is all they 
> need/want from MPLS,
> >:just so long as they don't try to stop others defining 
> solutions which have
> >:a more general application.  I have a strong sense that 
> some people want to
> >:do this....and therein lies the real problem IMO.
> >:>
> >:> -ajay
> >:>
> >:>
> >:> >:Robert Raszuk writes:
> >:> >:
> >:> >: > Currently deployed hardware & software.
> >:> >:
> >:> >:your current router hardware can't do many other things 
> either, like
> >:> >:learning mac addresses.  so when you re-spin it, you could
> >:> also consider
> >:> >:adding real support for ip tunneling for those who 
> don't like the
> >:> >:complexity of mpls control plane.
> >:> >:
> >:> >:-- juha
> >:> >:
> >:>
> >:> --
> >:>
> >:
> 
> -- 
> 
>