Peng, Thanks for the quick response! Please see in line below. On 10/22/2012 9:39 PM, Peng JIANG wrote: > Hello Lou, > >>> As to the technical details, the next hop as identified by the Path >>> message in the VPN context, will have a route and associated label >>> within the VPN context. This VPN label can be added to the Path >>> message, just as it would be for any VPN IP packet, and additional >>> labels may be added for PE-PE transport. In implementations that >>> rewrite the IP header, the IP destination can be set to the next >>> hop. The remote PE/next hop will receive the Path message with the >>> VPN label which will identify the VPN context/VRF. This PE will then >>> need to identify the packet as RSVP using either the router alert >>> mechanism or based on the IP header destination address. So I see no >>> reason for the modifications when the VAN-specific MPLS labels are >>> used. >>> >>> Shout if you think I missed something. > > We think you are correct about the Path message. > But Resv messages are different. The Resv messages are sent hop- > by-hop. The destination is not the remote PE but the unicast > address of a previous RSVP hop when a PE send out a Resv message. > > Therefor, there will be no VPN label and the remote PE will > have no method to identify the VPN context/VRF. > I'd expect it to be represented in the HOP object. Lou > In RFC 2205: > 3.1.3 Path Messages > A Path message travels from a sender to receiver(s) along the > same path(s) used by the data packets. The IP source address of > a Path message must be an address of the sender it describes, > while the destination address must be the DestAddress for the > session. > 3.1.4 Resv Messages > Resv messages carry reservation requests hop-by-hop from > receivers to senders, along the reverse paths of data flows for > the session. The IP destination address of a Resv message is the > unicast address of a previous-hop node, obtained from the path > state. > >>> My high-order take away is that it seems to me that this draft runs >>> counter to hierarchy-based solutions that can solve this problem just >>> fine without any additional RSVP modifications. I therefore think >>> this draft should be run through a WG that is willing to reconcile >>> the approaches (and fully document their uses case supported by >>> hierarchy). Failing that, I think the draft should have an IESG >>> applicability note added saying that this is experimental only and >>> that standard hierarchy should be used to solve the problem in any >>> operational implementation/network. > As I have explained, For Resv messages, hierarchy-based > solutions are not able to identify the VPN context/VRF at a > remote PE. > > Hope the above explaination will make sense to you. > Please let us konw if you have any further comments. > > Thanks. > > > Best Regards, > Peng JIANG > KDDI > > >> >> Hello, >> I made this comment privately during the LC period. I don't mind >> sharing it more widely: >> >>> My high-order take away is that it seems to me that this draft runs >>> counter to hierarchy-based solutions that can solve this problem just >>> fine without any additional RSVP modifications. I therefore think >>> this draft should be run through a WG that is willing to reconcile >>> the approaches (and fully document their uses case supported by >>> hierarchy). Failing that, I think the draft should have an IESG >>> applicability note added saying that this is experimental only and >>> that standard hierarchy should be used to solve the problem in any >>> operational implementation/network. >>> >>> As to the technical details, the next hop as identified by the Path >>> message in the VPN context, will have a route and associated label >>> within the VPN context. This VPN label can be added to the Path >>> message, just as it would be for any VPN IP packet, and additional >>> labels may be added for PE-PE transport. In implementations that >>> rewrite the IP header, the IP destination can be set to the next >>> hop. The remote PE/next hop will receive the Path message with the >>> VPN label which will identify the VPN context/VRF. This PE will then >>> need to identify the packet as RSVP using either the router alert >>> mechanism or based on the IP header destination address. So I see no >>> reason for the modifications when the VAN-specific MPLS labels are >>> used. >>> >>> Shout if you think I missed something. >> >> Lou >> On 9/5/2012 6:43 PM, The IESG wrote: >>> >>> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider >>> the following document: >>> - 'Support for RSVP-TE in L3VPNs' >>> <draft-kumaki-murai-l3vpn-rsvp-te-06.txt> as Experimental RFC >>> >>> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits >>> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the >>> ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2012-10-03. Exceptionally, comments may be >>> sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the >>> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. >>> >>> Abstract >>> >>> >>> IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) provide connectivity between sites >>> across an IP/MPLS backbone. These VPNs can be operated using BGP/MPLS >>> and a single provider edge (PE) node may provide access to multiple >>> customer sites belonging to different VPNs. >>> >>> The VPNs may support a number of customer services including RSVP and >>> RSVP-TE traffic. This document describes how to support RSVP-TE >>> between customer sites when a single PE supports multiple VPNs. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> The file can be obtained via >>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kumaki-murai-l3vpn-rsvp-te/ >>> >>> IESG discussion can be tracked via >>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kumaki-murai-l3vpn-rsvp-te/ballot/ >>> >>> >>> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. >>> >>> Due to an error by the sponsoring Area Director, the Last Call on >>> this document (which completed on 3rd September) incorrectly >>> stated that this draft was intended that it be published as Informational. >>> The correct intention (as stated in the draft itself) is that it be >>> published as Experimental. >>> >>> This Last Call is to verify community consensus for publication of >>> this draft as Experimental. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > > >