1 / 6

Use of Addresses in GMPLS Networks IETF 67 San Diego

Use of Addresses in GMPLS Networks IETF 67 San Diego. draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-addressing-05 Kohei Shiomoto: shiomoto.kohei@lab.ntt.co.jp Rajiv Papneja: rpapneja@isocore.com Richard Rabbat: richard@us.fujitsu.com. Outline. Update on status Changes from -04 Any remaining issues

dwighta
Download Presentation

Use of Addresses in GMPLS Networks IETF 67 San Diego

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Use of Addresses in GMPLS Networks IETF 67 San Diego draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-addressing-05 Kohei Shiomoto: shiomoto.kohei@lab.ntt.co.jp Rajiv Papneja: rpapneja@isocore.com Richard Rabbat: richard@us.fujitsu.com

  2. Outline • Update on status • Changes from -04 • Any remaining issues • Next steps

  3. Update on status • Received feedback from Ross Callon • Feedback was to make the recommendations tighter if this is going to be standards track • One major feedback is on section 4: are there really some implementations that still can’t support unnumbered and numbered addressing? We should use a SHOULD

  4. Changes from -04 • Received feedback from Zafar Ali and Ross Callon • Fixed section numbering references in RFC 4206 • Removed paragraph about setting IP tunnel sender address for dynamically set up numbered FAs (end of 5.2.2): FA’s covered in the hierarchy-bis draft now • Removed recommendation about the kind of RRO to prefer

  5. Changes from -04 (continued) • Changes to section 4 • Given the importance of having interoperable GMPLS implementations, a control plane implementation SHOULD support both numbered and unnumbered links. • A node that receives advertised link information that includes both numbered and unnumbered addresses SHOULD be able to accept this advertisement.

  6. Remaining Issues • Clean up some style issues • WG last call

More Related