The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2006-Apr> msg00042



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]  
  [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index]

[mpls] New Liaison Statement, "T-MPLS Consented Recommendatio ns"

  • From: "Mack-Crane, T. Benjamin" <Ben.Mack-Crane@tellabs.com>
  • Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 17:24:44 -0500
  • Thread-Index: AcZdj+i35VcnC8jxQTSqIOnSVmys8AAJN/Pg
  • Thread-Topic: [mpls] New Liaison Statement,"T-MPLS Consented Recommendatio ns"
  • X-IronPort-AV: i="4.04,113,1144022400"; d="scan'208"; a="50018446:sNHT261321964"
  • X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by cell.onecall.net id k3BMP8H30539
  • X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Apr 2006 22:23:22.0170 (UTC)FILETIME=[8ADB59A0:01C65DB6]
  • X-SBRS: None

Hi Adrian,

I agree that the requirements do not seem to be clear to everyone
participating in this discussion.  G.8110.1 does state "Transport MPLS
is a connection-oriented packet switched transport layer network
technology based on MPLS technology" which says a lot to folks familiar
with transport network architectures and functional modeling of layer
networks.  I understand this may not be clear to others however.

Perhaps one good way to think about T-MPLS is as an alternative to TDM
transport.  An LSR will relate to a T-MPLS transport device in a manner
similar to the way it relates to a SONET or SDH transport device, and
T-MPLS will provide transport services similar to those provided by
SONET/SDH.  From this perspective it may be easier to understand the
functional subset selected for T-MPLS.

Regards,
Ben

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 12:42 PM
> To: Shahram Davari; 'Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS'; Thomas D. Nadeau;
> mpls@lists.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [mpls] New Liaison Statement, "T-MPLS Consented
Recommendatio
> ns"
> 
> Shahram,
> 
> Jerry asked about Y.1713 and you said...
> 
> > My guess: because it is not needed for T-MPLS, since T-MPLS doesn't
> support label merging (aka LDP).
> 
> This is really hard for us.
> We cannot hope to guess what is or is not needed for T-MPLS becuase
no-one
> has seen fit to explain the requirements to us.
> No: none of the three documents liaised has any discussion of
> requirements. It all launches straight into feature sets.
> 
> But one thing the documents *do* say is that protocols are out of
scope.
> So it is entirely possible that LDP would be used in T-MPLS (although
I
> thinik that would be a bad idea!)
> 
> You should note very clearly that LDP is not synonymous with label
> merging.
> 
> Adrian
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@lists.ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
============================================================
The information contained in this message may be privileged
and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader
of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee
or agent responsible for delivering this message to the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reproduction,
dissemination or distribution of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please notify us immediately by replying to the message and
deleting it from your computer. Thank you. Tellabs
============================================================

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls