The MPLS WG Archive

["Rajiv Papneja" <rpapneja@isocore.com>]

Section 3 in draft-ietf-pwe3-control-protocol-01.txt.

Due to this ambiguity, we were never able to bring up the VC tunnels because
one of the vendor followed pwe3-control draft and other followed
draft-martini-l2circuit-trans-mpls-10.txt.

Thanks Vach for pointing out this issue.

 -Rajiv

----- Original Message -----
From: "Vach Kompella" <vkompella@timetra.com>
To: "Andrew G. Malis" <Andy.Malis@vivacenetworks.com>; <erosen@cisco.com>
Cc: <mpls@UU.NET>
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 9:52 PM
Subject: RE: Distributing Labels for PWs within an LSP TE Tunnel


> One of the problems with the new version of the pwe3-control draft is that
the
> line that says that the platform label space must be used has been dropped
from
> the text.  I assume that this was unintentional because it doesn't make
sense to
> use interface-specific labels.  However, it became apparent at the ISOCORE
> interop that one vendor didn't realize this.
>
> Could it please be re-inserted, right after where it says liberal label
> retention should be used?
>
>   "VC labels MUST be allocated from the per-platform label space."
>
> Thanks.
>
> -Vach
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-mpls@UU.NET [mailto:owner-mpls@UU.NET]On Behalf Of Andrew G.
> > Malis
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 5:49 PM
> > To: erosen@cisco.com
> > Cc: mpls@UU.NET
> > Subject: Re: Distributing Labels for PWs within an LSP TE Tunnel
> >
> >
> > At 3/25/2003 10:04 AM -0500, Eric Rosen wrote:
> >
> > >Nurit> I do look for  a way to bind the (LDP) signaled  PWs to the
(RSVP-TE)
> > >Nurit> signaled transport tunnel LSP, in a way that both PEs know about
it.
> > >
> > >There is no way to do this using the protocols as currently defined.
> >
> > I agree with Eric, and it's the way it is for a very good reason - as a
> > result of requiring PW labels in the platform label space, deciding
which
> > RSVP-TE tunnel to use for the LDP-signaled PWs is purely a local matter
at
> > the PE that's encapsulating the L2 frames.  This allows a number of nice
> > properties, such as the ability to very easily switch to a backup tunnel
if
> > there's a primary tunnel failure and the network isn't using FRR in the
> > core, or to load-share over multiple tunnels if the PW doesn't have
> > sequentiality requirements (or has partial sequentiality
> > requirements).  Using end-to-end signaling to bind a PW to a particular
> > tunnel removes these properties.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Andy
> >
> >
>
>