The MPLS-OPS Archive

[Roberto.Guglielmi@alcatel.it]

Vijay,
I have a doubt. If the TE tunnel is internally used by the LSP, how is 
it possible to use all the parameters configured in the TE MIB for the 
TE tunnel, given the fact the the classification process would point 
directly to the XC entry? You can only apply traffic parameters 
retrieved from the LSR MIB.
    - Roberto



Vijayanand C - CTD, Chennai. wrote:

> Yes, thats because its' the vanilla LSP which is the 'hit' in the
> classification, and the TE tunnel is internally used by it.
>
> Its my pleasure to help.
>
> Thanks and Regards
> Vijay
>
> "Where protocols are a passion, MPLS is a religion "
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roberto.Guglielmi@alcatel.it [mailto:Roberto.Guglielmi@alcatel.it]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 4:14 PM
> To: Vijayanand C - CTD, Chennai.
> Subject: Re: TE MIB - LSR MIB integration
>
>
> Hence, the FTNActionPointer would point directly to the XC entry and 
> not to the TE tunnel entry, is it right? This was the point getting me 
> confused.
> I really appreciate your help.
>    - Roberto
>
>
> Vijayanand C - CTD, Chennai. wrote:
>
>  
>
>> Yes, this is what I meant.
>>
>> But I dont understand what you are trying to get at.
>>
>> At the ingress the FTN map entries for the vanilla LSPs will clasify the
>> packet and use the labels  pointed to by the XC which will contain 
>> the TE
>> tunnel label on top. This top label will be associated with the 
>> subsequent
>> traffic shaping activities.
>>
>> Thanks and Regards
>> Vijay
>>
>> "Where protocols are a passion, MPLS is a religion "
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Roberto.Guglielmi@alcatel.it [mailto:Roberto.Guglielmi@alcatel.it]
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 3:44 PM
>> To: Vijayanand C - CTD, Chennai.
>> Cc: mpls@UU.NET
>> Subject: Re: TE MIB - LSR MIB integration
>>
>>
>> Vijayanand,
>> please let me know if i understood what you just said.
>>
>> 1) There are 4 XC entries:
>>       - 1 XC entry associated to the TE tunnel entry with only the 
>> tunnel label in the Out Segment
>>       - 3 XC entries each one associated to one flow and each one 
>> with the tunnel label in the Out Segment and the bottom label in the 
>> Stack
>>   
>
> Table.
>  
>
>> Is this correct?
>>
>> 2) In this case, how is it possible to get to one of the 3 XC entries 
>> containing the stack of labels, passing by the TE tunnel table, since 
>> the TE tunnel entry points to the XC entry with only the tunnel 
>> label? In other words, I don't understand how multiple LSPs can use 
>> the TE tunnel entry!
>>
>>   - Roberto
>>
>>
>> Vijayanand C - CTD, Chennai. wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>   
>>
>>> The label stack and top label arrangements are as usual , as you said.
>>>
>>> Reg. the TE tunnel entry - I would imagine its going to have an 
>>> associated
>>> XC entry ,which has associated outsegment, FTN etc. and would be 
>>> able to
>>> carry traffic directly( not just as a tunnel for other LSPs).
>>> Multiple LSPs may be using this TE tunnel entry, since they would be
>>>  
>>>     
>>
>> holding
>>
>>
>>   
>>
>>> the TE tunnel label as their top label in their outsegments.
>>> Thanks and Regards
>>> Vijay
>>>
>>> "Where protocols are a passion, MPLS is a religion "
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Roberto.Guglielmi@alcatel.it 
>>> [mailto:Roberto.Guglielmi@alcatel.it]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 1:49 PM
>>> To: Vijayanand C - CTD, Chennai.; Zhu, Rupert; Yuan Gu
>>> Cc: mpls@UU.NET
>>> Subject: Re: TE MIB - LSR MIB integration
>>>
>>>
>>> Yuan,Rupert and Vijayanand thanks for your replies.
>>> Please see my comments inline.
>>>
>>>     - Roberto
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Vijayanand C - CTD, Chennai. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  
>>>     
>>>
>>>> In this scenario there is only one TE tunnel , ie the outer tunnel 
>>>> across
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>>    
>>>>       
>>>
>>> R1
>>>
>>>
>>>  
>>>     
>>>
>>>> to R3. Three vanilla LSPs use it to tunnel flows across R1 to R3. ( 
>>>> hope
>>>>       
>>>
> I
>  
>
>>>> understood the problem right).
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>>    
>>>>       
>>>
>>> You understood right.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  
>>>     
>>>
>>>> Hence , it would be appropriate to have 3 XC entries( pointed from 
>>>> their
>>>> respective FTN entries) corresponding to each vanilla LSP with the 
>>>> tunnel
>>>> label in their label stacks.
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>>    
>>>>       
>>>
>>> So, the tunnel label in the mplsOutSegmentTable and the bottom label in
>>>     
>>
> the
>  
>
>>> mplsLabelStackTable?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  
>>>     
>>>
>>>> Also, I think there should be only one tunnel entry corresponding 
>>>> to the
>>>>    
>>>>       
>>>
>> TE
>>
>>
>>   
>>
>>>> tunnel.
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>>    
>>>>       
>>>
>>> Which table points to this tunnel entry? Where does this tunnel 
>>> entry point to?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  
>>>     
>>>
>>>> Thanks and Regards
>>>> Vijay
>>>>
>>>> "Where protocols are a passion, MPLS is a religion "
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Zhu, Rupert [mailto:rupert.zhu@santera.com]
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 6:01 AM
>>>> To: Yuan Gu; Roberto.Guglielmi@alcatel.it; mpls@UU.NET
>>>> Subject: RE: TE MIB - LSR MIB integration
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Roberto, Yuan:
>>>>
>>>> Interesting scenario.  I agree on Yuan's approach, if you
>>>> insist on mapping the 3 LSPs into one TE tunnel.
>>>> However, why should we choose to map the 3 LSPs to
>>>> the same tunnel?
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>>    
>>>>       
>>>
>>> The incoming flows are Ethernet TLS flow traversing an intervening 
>>> MPLS network. The typical scenario is to assign each of the flows 
>>> entering and leaving the MPLS network from the same end points, with 
>>> a VC label (following Martini's draft) and encapsulate all the 
>>> obtained LSPs into one TE tunnel, in order to offer the different 
>>> clients the same service.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  
>>>     
>>>
>>>> The application described is to have 3 flows carried in 3 LSPs,
>>>> respectively.  Since there is no logical relationships between
>>>> the 3 LSPs, (e.g., load sharing, backup, etc.), it seems more
>>>> appropriate to model them as 3 independent entities.
>>>>
>>>> Alternative Solution #1:  Map to 3 LSPs directly.
>>>>
>>>> -- Populate 3 entries in mplsFTNTable (in MPLS-FTN-MIB).
>>>>    Have each mplsFTNActionType=redirectLSP.
>>>>    Have each mplsFTNActionPointer pointing to one
>>>>    of the 3 mplsXCEntry.
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>>    
>>>>       
>>>
>>> The classification is achieved using the pwe MIBs. The VC label is 
>>> kept in the MPLS world, not in the pwe world.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  
>>>     
>>>
>>>> Alternative Solution #2:  Map to 3 tunnels (instead of one).
>>>>
>>>> -- Populate 3 entries in mplsFTNTable (in MPLS-FTN-MIB).
>>>> -- Populate 3 entries in mplsTunnelTable, each representing
>>>>    a distinct (logical) tunnel.  (That is, they have different
>>>>    values in mplsTunnelIndex.)
>>>> -- Have each mplsFTNActionType=redirectTunnel.
>>>>    Have each mplsFTNActionPointer pointing to one of
>>>>    the 3 mplsTunnelEntry.
>>>>
>>>> In other words, if there is no relationship between the 3 LSPs,
>>>> then they do not belong to the same TE tunnel.
>>>>
>>>> My two cents.
>>>>
>>>> -- Rupert
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>>    
>>>>       
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Yuan Gu [mailto:yuangu@ipinfusion.com]
>>>>> Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 2:12 PM
>>>>> To: Roberto.Guglielmi@alcatel.it; mpls@UU.NET
>>>>> Subject: RE: TE MIB - LSR MIB integration
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello, Roberto:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>   
>>>>>      
>>>>>         
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: owner-mpls@UU.NET [mailto:owner-mpls@UU.NET]On Behalf Of
>>>>>> Roberto.Guglielmi@alcatel.it
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 3:19 AM
>>>>>> To: mpls@UU.NET
>>>>>> Subject: TE MIB - LSR MIB integration
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello everybody,
>>>>>> I have a doubt about interactions between LSR MIB and TE  
>>>>>>     
>>>>>>        
>>>>>>           
>>>>>
>>>>> MIB for what
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>   
>>>>>      
>>>>>         
>>>>>
>>>>>> concerning LSPs nested in TE tunnels.
>>>>>> Consider the following scenario:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> R1 -------- R2 -------- R3
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and suppose, for example, I have three incoming flows. I  
>>>>>>     
>>>>>>        
>>>>>>           
>>>>>
>>>>> want to insert
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>   
>>>>>      
>>>>>         
>>>>>
>>>>>> each flow in one LSP and tunnel the three LSPs in one TE tunnel.
>>>>>> My questions are:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) How are the three LSPs mapped on the same TE tunnel?
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>     
>>>>>>        
>>>>>>           
>>>>>
>>>>> There will be 3 entries in mplsTunnelTable. Each entry has different
>>>>> mplsTuunnelInstance.
>>>>>
>>>>> The mplsTunnelInstance "Uniquely identifies an instance of a 
>>>>> tunnel. It is
>>>>> useful to identify multiple instances of tunnels for the purposes 
>>>>> of backup
>>>>> and parallel tunnels."
>>>>> You may want to put your LSPID into this field.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>   
>>>>>      
>>>>>         
>>>>>
>>>>>> 2) Is there only one entry in the mplsTunnelTable pointing  
>>>>>>     
>>>>>>        
>>>>>>           
>>>>>
>>>>> to one entry
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>   
>>>>>      
>>>>>         
>>>>>
>>>>>> in the mplsXCTable?
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>     
>>>>>>        
>>>>>>           
>>>>>
>>>>> There will be 3 corresponding entries in mplsXCTable. Each entry has
>>>>> different mplsXCLspId (RSVP-TE or CR-LDP).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>   
>>>>>      
>>>>>         
>>>>
>>> I understand your point of view.
>>> In my opinion, the 3 entries in mplsXCTable should have the tunnel 
>>> label
>>>     
>>
> in
>  
>
>>> the mplsOutSegmentTable and the bottom label in the 
>>> mplsLabelStackTable.
>>>     
>>
> Do
>  
>
>>> you agree? If not, where the 2 labels are indicated for each flow?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  
>>>     
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>   
>>>>>      
>>>>>         
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>>    
>>>>       
>>>
>>>  
>>>     
>>
>>
>>
>>   
>
>
>
>  
>


-------
The MPLS-OPS Mailing List
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:  http://www.mplsrc.com/mplsops.shtml
Archive: http://www.mplsrc.com/mpls-ops_archive.shtml