Ethernet TSPEC and MEF Parameters draft-ietf-mef-ethernet-traffic-parameters-01.txt

Clarification Points Point 1: Port vs Frame mode Point 2: VLAN Label

Port vs Frame mode (1) Switching Type (ST) in Label Request object = interface switching Ethernet => L2SC (value 51) LABEL REQUEST object format: | Length | Class-Num ( ) | C-Type ( ) | | LSP Encoding |Switching Type | GPID |

Port vs Frame mode (2) Frame mode: individual Ethernet frame switching decision based on Ethernet MAC frame header e.g. VLAN Port mode: Ethernet frame relayed from input to output port (independently of Ethernet MAC header) - framing only

Port vs Frame mode (3) Ethernet SENDER_TSPEC object format: | Length | Class-Num (12)| C-Type (6) | | Switching Granularity | MTU | | | ~ TLVs ~ | | Switching Granularity (16 bits) indicates the type of link that comprises the requested Ethernet LSP. Defined values: Value Switching Granularity Ethernet Port 2 Ethernet Frame

Label Port mode => port label (encoded over 32 bits) = component interface identifier Frame mode => VLAN label (encoded over 12 bits - right justified)

Label object and values RFC VCAT case => multiple label values as part of Resv message – set of one or more LABEL objects CE-PE signaling (UNI) request for multiple labels => multiple TLV 129 in TSPEC (replaces multiplier field of SONET/SDH T_SPEC)

Constraint set of labels Per RFC 3473 include in Path message composed by a list of one or more LABEL_SET objects

Question Need to document these applicability statements in this I-D ? My opinion: YES

Update mCoS LSP = single LSP (control plane) with multiple CoS (data plane) index field in TLV 129 correspond to at least one of the index value included in the extended ClassType (CT) object [RFC4124], [MCOS] WHY: base DS-TE nice but increase overhead of CP

Next Step Revision (soon after meeting) Then LC Liaison to OIF and other bodies looking at reusing “GMPLS” for Ethernet LSPs Comments ?