The MPLS WG Archive[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index] TE MIB - LSR MIB integration
The label stack and top label arrangements are as usual , as you said. Reg. the TE tunnel entry - I would imagine its going to have an associated XC entry ,which has associated outsegment, FTN etc. and would be able to carry traffic directly( not just as a tunnel for other LSPs). Multiple LSPs may be using this TE tunnel entry, since they would be holding the TE tunnel label as their top label in their outsegments. Thanks and Regards Vijay "Where protocols are a passion, MPLS is a religion " -----Original Message----- From: Roberto.Guglielmi@alcatel.it [mailto:Roberto.Guglielmi@alcatel.it] Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 1:49 PM To: Vijayanand C - CTD, Chennai.; Zhu, Rupert; Yuan Gu Cc: mpls@UU.NET Subject: Re: TE MIB - LSR MIB integration Yuan,Rupert and Vijayanand thanks for your replies. Please see my comments inline. - Roberto Vijayanand C - CTD, Chennai. wrote: >In this scenario there is only one TE tunnel , ie the outer tunnel across R1 >to R3. Three vanilla LSPs use it to tunnel flows across R1 to R3. ( hope I >understood the problem right). > You understood right. > >Hence , it would be appropriate to have 3 XC entries( pointed from their >respective FTN entries) corresponding to each vanilla LSP with the tunnel >label in their label stacks. > So, the tunnel label in the mplsOutSegmentTable and the bottom label in the mplsLabelStackTable? > >Also, I think there should be only one tunnel entry corresponding to the TE >tunnel. > Which table points to this tunnel entry? Where does this tunnel entry point to? > >Thanks and Regards >Vijay > >"Where protocols are a passion, MPLS is a religion " > >-----Original Message----- >From: Zhu, Rupert [mailto:rupert.zhu@santera.com] >Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 6:01 AM >To: Yuan Gu; Roberto.Guglielmi@alcatel.it; mpls@UU.NET >Subject: RE: TE MIB - LSR MIB integration > > >Roberto, Yuan: > >Interesting scenario. I agree on Yuan's approach, if you >insist on mapping the 3 LSPs into one TE tunnel. >However, why should we choose to map the 3 LSPs to >the same tunnel? > The incoming flows are Ethernet TLS flow traversing an intervening MPLS network. The typical scenario is to assign each of the flows entering and leaving the MPLS network from the same end points, with a VC label (following Martini's draft) and encapsulate all the obtained LSPs into one TE tunnel, in order to offer the different clients the same service. > >The application described is to have 3 flows carried in 3 LSPs, >respectively. Since there is no logical relationships between >the 3 LSPs, (e.g., load sharing, backup, etc.), it seems more >appropriate to model them as 3 independent entities. > >Alternative Solution #1: Map to 3 LSPs directly. > > -- Populate 3 entries in mplsFTNTable (in MPLS-FTN-MIB). > Have each mplsFTNActionType=redirectLSP. > Have each mplsFTNActionPointer pointing to one > of the 3 mplsXCEntry. > The classification is achieved using the pwe MIBs. The VC label is kept in the MPLS world, not in the pwe world. > >Alternative Solution #2: Map to 3 tunnels (instead of one). > > -- Populate 3 entries in mplsFTNTable (in MPLS-FTN-MIB). > -- Populate 3 entries in mplsTunnelTable, each representing > a distinct (logical) tunnel. (That is, they have different > values in mplsTunnelIndex.) > -- Have each mplsFTNActionType=redirectTunnel. > Have each mplsFTNActionPointer pointing to one of > the 3 mplsTunnelEntry. > >In other words, if there is no relationship between the 3 LSPs, >then they do not belong to the same TE tunnel. > >My two cents. > >-- Rupert > > > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Yuan Gu [mailto:yuangu@ipinfusion.com] >>Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 2:12 PM >>To: Roberto.Guglielmi@alcatel.it; mpls@UU.NET >>Subject: RE: TE MIB - LSR MIB integration >> >> >>Hello, Roberto: >> >> >> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: owner-mpls@UU.NET [mailto:owner-mpls@UU.NET]On Behalf Of >>>Roberto.Guglielmi@alcatel.it >>>Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 3:19 AM >>>To: mpls@UU.NET >>>Subject: TE MIB - LSR MIB integration >>> >>> >>>Hello everybody, >>>I have a doubt about interactions between LSR MIB and TE >>> >>> >>MIB for what >> >> >>>concerning LSPs nested in TE tunnels. >>>Consider the following scenario: >>> >>>R1 -------- R2 -------- R3 >>> >>>and suppose, for example, I have three incoming flows. I >>> >>> >>want to insert >> >> >>>each flow in one LSP and tunnel the three LSPs in one TE tunnel. >>>My questions are: >>> >>>1) How are the three LSPs mapped on the same TE tunnel? >>> >>> >>There will be 3 entries in mplsTunnelTable. Each entry has different >>mplsTuunnelInstance. >> >>The mplsTunnelInstance "Uniquely identifies an instance of a >>tunnel. It is >>useful to identify multiple instances of tunnels for the >>purposes of backup >>and parallel tunnels." >>You may want to put your LSPID into this field. >> >> >> >>>2) Is there only one entry in the mplsTunnelTable pointing >>> >>> >>to one entry >> >> >>>in the mplsXCTable? >>> >>> >>There will be 3 corresponding entries in mplsXCTable. Each entry has >>different mplsXCLspId (RSVP-TE or CR-LDP). >> >> >> I understand your point of view. In my opinion, the 3 entries in mplsXCTable should have the tunnel label in the mplsOutSegmentTable and the bottom label in the mplsLabelStackTable. Do you agree? If not, where the 2 labels are indicated for each flow? >> >> >> > > > |
|