1 / 7

Issues with Link Bundling Draft and updates from MPLS WG Meeting draft-ietf-mpls-bundle-04.txt

Issues with Link Bundling Draft and updates from MPLS WG Meeting draft-ietf-mpls-bundle-04.txt. Zafar Ali (zali@cisco.com). Background: Why Bundling Draft is Pulled from RFC Editor Queue?.

jackpreston
Download Presentation

Issues with Link Bundling Draft and updates from MPLS WG Meeting draft-ietf-mpls-bundle-04.txt

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. Issues with Link Bundling Draft and updates from MPLS WG Meeting draft-ietf-mpls-bundle-04.txt Zafar Ali (zali@cisco.com)

  2. Background: Why Bundling Draft is Pulled from RFC Editor Queue? • A team of contributors, which includes authors of the Bundling Draft, had identified and discussed some issues with bundling draft coupled with RFC3471/ 73 • List of Contributors (Ordered Alphabetically): Zafar Ali, Arthi Ayyangar, Lou Berger, Igor Bryskin, John Drake, Adrian Farrel, Kireeti Kompella, Dimitri Papadimitriou, Yakov Rekhter, and Anca Zamfir. • These issues concerns text in bundling draft and in RFC 3471/73 and hence concerns MPLS and CCAMP WGs.

  3. List of Issues • Scoping of Component Link ID • Node vs. Bundled TE link Scoped. • Equivalents of Type 4/5 TLVs for IPv4 and IPv6 IF_ID RSVP_HOP and IF_ID ERROR_SPEC Objects. • Recording (and explicit control) of the component link ID.

  4. Updates from MPLS WG Meeting • These issues were discussed in MPLS WG meeting on 11/9/2004. • Authors of bundling draft plan to address issue 1 and 2 in the revised version. • MPLS WG is following up and will close on issue 1 and 2, in the context of the bundling draft. • Component link recording (and explicit control) will remain outside the scope of the bundling draft.

  5. Planned updates to draft-ietf-mpls-bundle-04 Authors of the bundling draft plan to update the ID as follows, • Node/IP scope for all component link TLV types • Tightly define support for different components in each direction (for bidirectional LSPs) • For types 1, 2 and 3 • And types 4 and 5 • Use TE Router ID in types 3, 4, 5 TLVs • Allow, but recommend against use of types 4 and 5 • The bundling document would also document all the potential error cases that could happen in particular in case of inversion, if the components themselves are bidirectional.

  6. Issue 3: Recording (and explicit control) of the Component Link ID • This work will be pursued by CCAMP or MPLS WG as a separate ID. • draft-dimitri-ccamp-gmpls-rsvp-te-bundled-links or draft-zamfir-explicit-resource-control-bundle will be revised based on closure of issues 1 and 2 in the bundling draft.

  7. Next Step • MPLS WGs will close the issues 1 and 2 in the context of the bundling draft. • Based on the closure of these issues we will be able to close on solution for Issue 3. • We need to find home for the Recording (and explicit control) of the component link ID (MPLS or CCAMP WG). Thank You

More Related