The MPLS WG Archive

[Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>]

All,

Here's one (but not the only) comment that was made off list.  Also 
there were already several comments made on these points on the list.

My comment still applies, and please consider this as an "objection" 
to the proposed text:

At 01:20 PM 6/22/2006, Lou Berger wrote:
>[...]
>At 05:23 PM 6/20/2006, Rahul Aggarwal wrote:
>>Hi All,
>>
>>Attached is draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-p2mp-06.txt that incorporates changes
>>to address Last call comments.
>>
>>Please let me know if you have any comments on *only the changes made to
>>address LC comments* i.e. diff of v05 and v06 by this Friday.
>>
>>A brief summary of changes:
>>
>>1. Editorial changes requested by Benjamin Niven - see MPLS mailing list.
>>2. Several editorial and non editorial changes requestd by Adrian Farrel -
>>see MPLS mailing list for Adrian's comments and my response. There may be
>>one or two open items here. Once Adrian looks at my response these should
>>be resolved quickly.
>>3. Several editorial and non-editorial changes requestd by JL - see MPLS
>>mailing list for JL's comments and my response.
>>4. Clarification of tunnel ID and extended Tunnel ID semantics as
>>requested by Yakov Rekhter and follow on comments by Zafar Ali and George
>>Swallow.
>

The objection:

>I don't have any issues with the changes mentioned by Zafer and 
>George, but I didn't see closure on the issue debated by Adrian and 
>Yakov.  Specifically on the issue of if extended tunnel ID had to 
>equal the node ID of the sender.  I did see a position state, that I 
>too agree with, i.e., that  it should be permitted and may be 
>required in some environments (e.g., FRR) but may not be required in 
>all environments so should be left as before.  Also, as I read the 
>mails most were in favor of leaving tunnel ID as is, i.e., not 
>requiring it to be set to zero.  This doesn't match what was done in 
>this past rev.

In summary, my position is:
1) That the extended tunnel ID remain as defined in the previous 
version, i.e., retain the semantics from rfc3209/rfc3473.  I think 
adding a restriction for environments where FRR is used is 
acceptable.  (This spec covers GMPLS and non-packet environments too!)
2) That Tunnel ID remain as defined in previous version, i.e., retain 
the semantics from rfc3209/rfc3473.

The specifics of the text below is dependent on consensus on these points.

Lou

At 02:18 PM 6/22/2006, Rahul Aggarwal wrote:


>Hi Folks,
>
>Yakov brought up the issue of P2MP ID, Tunnel ID, Extended Tunnel ID
>semantics as part of the last call and a discussion followed on this list.
>
>In order to resolve this discussion I had proposed some text. I have
>received some comments on this offline and want to move this discussion to
>a broader audience.
>
>Please comment on the text changes below, if you have objections or
>suggestions. Else this will be incorporated in the next version of the
>spec.
>
>How about the following rephrasing:
>
>1.
>
>Section 4.1:
>
>" A P2MP TE Tunnel comprises one or more P2MP LSPs. A P2MP TE Tunnel is
>    identified by a P2MP SESSION object. This object contains the
>    identifier of the P2MP Session which includes the P2MP ID, a tunnel
>    ID and an extended tunnel ID.
>
>    The fields of a P2MP SESSION object are identical to those of the
>    SESSION object defined in [RFC3209] except that the Tunnel Endpoint
>    Address field is replaced by the P2MP Identifier (P2MP ID) field.
>
>    The P2MP ID provides an identifier for the set of destinations of the
>    P2MP TE Tunnel."
>
>to
>
>" A P2MP TE Tunnel comprises one or more P2MP LSPs. A P2MP TE Tunnel is
>identified by a P2MP SESSION object. This object contains the
>identifier of the P2MP Session which includes a tuple
><Ingress LSR IP address, P2MP Identifier>, where the P2MP Identifier (P2MP
>ID) is unique within the scope of the IP address of the ingress LSR. The
>Ingress LSR IP address is encoded in the Extended Tunnel ID. Th P2MP
>Tunnel identifier, carried in the P2MP SESSION object, is unique within
>the same scope as the ingress LSR IP address.
>
>The fields of the P2MP SESSION object are identical to those of the
>SESSION object defined in [RFC3209] except that the Tunnel Endpoint
>Address field is replaced by the P2MP ID field."
>
>2.
>
>Section 4.2.
>
>"   A P2MP LSP is identified by the combination of the P2MP ID, Tunnel
>    ID, and Extended Tunnel ID that are part of the P2MP SESSION object,
>    and the tunnel sender address and LSP ID fields of the P2MP
>    SENDER_TEMPLATE object. The new P2MP SENDER_TEMPLATE object is
>    defined in section 20.2."
>
>to
>
>"   A P2MP LSP is identified by the combination of the P2MP ID,
>Extended Tunnel ID that are part of the P2MP SESSION object,
>and the tunnel sender address and LSP ID fields of the P2MP
>SENDER_TEMPLATE object. The new P2MP SENDER_TEMPLATE object is
>defined in section 20.2."
>
>3.
>
>19.1.1
>
>"P2MP ID
>
>       A 32-bit identifier used in the SESSION object that remains
>       constant over the life of the P2MP tunnel. It encodes the
>       P2MP ID and identifies the set of destinations of the P2MP
>       Tunnel."
>
>to
>
>"P2MP ID
>
>       A 32-bit identifier used in the SESSION object that remains
>       constant over the life of the P2MP tunnel. It encodes the
>       P2MP Identifier that is unique within the scope of the Ingress LSR
>       IP address carried in the Extended Tunnel ID.
>
>4.
>19.1.1
>
>"Tunnel ID
>
>       A 16-bit identifier used in the SESSION object that remains
>       constant over the life of the P2MP tunnel."
>
>to
>
>"Tunnel ID
>
>       A 16-bit identifier used in the SESSION object that remains
>       constant over the life of the P2MP tunnel. It SHOULD be set to 0
>       by the ingress LSR and be ignored on receipt."
>
>
>5.
>
>"Extended Tunnel ID
>
>  A 32-bit identifier used in the SESSION object that remains
>       constant over the life of the P2MP tunnel.  Normally set to
>       all zeros. Ingress nodes that wish to narrow the scope of a
>       SESSION to the ingress-PID pair may place their IPv4 address
>       here as a globally unique identifier [RFC3209]."
>
>to
>
>"Extended Tunnel ID
>
>       A 32-bit identifier used in the SESSION object that remains
>       constant over the life of the P2MP tunnel. This identifier
>       MUST be set to the ingress LSR's IPv4 address."
>
>6.
>
>19.1.2
>
>"This is same as the P2MP IPv4 LSP SESSION Object with the difference
>    that the extended tunnel ID may be set to a 16 byte identifier
>    [RFC3209]."
>
>to
>
>"This is same as the P2MP IPv4 LSP SESSION Object with the difference
>    that the extended tunnel ID MUST be set to a 16 byte identifier that is
>the ingress LSR's IPv6 address."
>
>7.
>
>19.2.1
>
>" IPv4 tunnel sender address
>             See [RFC3209]"
>
>to"
>
>"IPv4 tunnel sender address. This address MUST be the same as the address
>in the Extended Tunnel ID field of the SESSION object."
>
>8.
>
>19.2.2
>
>"IPv6 tunnel sender address
>            See [RFC3209]"
>
>to
>
>"IPv6 tunnel sender address. This address MUST be the same as the address
>in the Extended Tunnel ID field of the SESSION object."
>
>Thanks,
>rahul
>
>_______________________________________________
>mpls mailing list
>mpls@lists.ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls


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