From owner-gsmp@psyton.com Thu Sep 14 05:22:46 2000 Received: from nighthawk.psyton.com (IDENT:root@psyton.ne.mediaone.net [24.218.14.40]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id FAA07643 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 05:22:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by nighthawk.psyton.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) id FAA06341 for gsmp-list; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 05:06:06 -0400 Received: from qhars002.nortel.com (qhars002.NortelNetworks.com [192.100.101.19]) by nighthawk.psyton.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id FAA06338 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 05:06:04 -0400 Received: from zhard00m.europe.nortel.com (actually zhard00m) by qhars002.nortel.com; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 10:05:37 +0100 Received: from zvb1c002.corpemea.baynetworks.com ([141.251.160.82]) by zhard00m.europe.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2652.39) id S4ZNWL72; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 10:05:33 +0100 Received: from europem01.nt.com (KSUNDELL [141.251.192.238]) by zvb1c002.corpemea.baynetworks.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2652.39) id STBVP6N8; Thu, 14 Sep 2000 11:05:32 +0200 Message-ID: <39C09544.746DBB68@europem01.nt.com> Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 11:07:16 +0200 X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Kenneth Sundell" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gsmp@psyton.com Subject: Re: last call comments References: <001e01c00e56$8c4ce5c0$6c9b2ca6@pc25811.wcom.com> <39A62ABE.8D15CA17@europem01.nt.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-gsmp@psyton.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: gsmp@psyton.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit folks, i interpret the silence that we have consensus on option 2, i.e. to use tlv labels only. ken "Sundell, Kenneth" wrote: > folks, > is there anyone that objects to option 2 as described below? > > ken > > > tom worster wrote: > i see these options: > > > > 1) use short form, fixed length for all labels. this is no good since > > there is a need for variable length labels. > > > > 2) use tlv form for all labels. this will work. it is the cleanest > > solution. > > > > 3) use short for atm/fr/mpls and tlv for the rest. this will work. > > > > 4) require switch support for both forms. this will also work. > > > > 5) allow switch to support either or both. this is broken -- unless > > we add something like the discovery you mentioned to fix it. > > > > so i think we should choose between 2), 3), and 4). i don't much > > like 4) because it seems nonsensical to require two message formats > > for the same thing -- which was my original last call comment. but > > i'm willing to go along with any of these three. > > > > c u > > fsb -- Kenneth Sundell Routing Architecture Lab, Nortel Networks Sweden phone: +46 8 5088-3538, mobile +46 70 665-7838 From owner-gsmp@psyton.com Fri Sep 29 05:09:54 2000 Received: from nighthawk.psyton.com (IDENT:root@psyton.ne.mediaone.net [24.218.12.177]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id FAA25461 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 05:09:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by nighthawk.psyton.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) id EAA31269 for gsmp-list; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 04:55:38 -0400 Received: from gateway.ntu.edu.sg (gateway.ntu.edu.sg [155.69.1.127]) by nighthawk.psyton.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id EAA31266 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 04:55:33 -0400 Received: by gateway.ntu.edu.sg with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 16:54:54 +0800 Message-ID: <9985F17605D2D21192D80008C75DE4BE01FDD0E1@exchange4.ntu.edu.sg> From: Shen Gangxiang To: "'gsmp@revnetworks.com'" Subject: Some general questions on GSMP Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 16:54:47 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-gsmp@psyton.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: gsmp@psyton.com Hi, folks, I am new in this discussion group. I have some questions on GSMP: 1.Based on my understanding, it seems that GSMP is a protocol only to manage connections in a switch, not those peer-to-peer connections(crossing multiple links). To establish a peer-to-peer one, it needs to cooperate with other protocols including routing protocols (e.g. OSPF) and signalling protocol (e.g. CR-LDP) 2. If the controller and the controlled switch are deployed in the same box, do we still need such a kind of protocol? Thanks in advance for any comment! Gangxiang From owner-gsmp@psyton.com Fri Sep 29 05:51:19 2000 Received: from nighthawk.psyton.com (IDENT:root@psyton.ne.mediaone.net [24.218.12.177]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id FAA25678 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 05:51:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by nighthawk.psyton.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) id FAA31418 for gsmp-list; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 05:43:42 -0400 Received: from qhars002.nortel.com (qhars002.NortelNetworks.com [192.100.101.19]) by nighthawk.psyton.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id FAA31415 for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 05:43:41 -0400 Received: from znsgd00t.europe.nortel.com (actually znsgd00t) by qhars002.nortel.com; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 10:38:54 +0100 Received: from zvb1c002.corpemea.baynetworks.com ([141.251.160.82]) by znsgd00t.europe.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2652.39) id TX6VGJW5; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 10:38:53 +0100 Received: from europem01.nt.com (KSUNDELL [141.251.192.238]) by zvb1c002.corpemea.baynetworks.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2652.39) id TX7Q5HJZ; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 11:38:52 +0200 Message-ID: <39D463AF.92B77289@europem01.nt.com> Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 11:41:03 +0200 X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: "Kenneth Sundell" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gsmp@psyton.com Subject: Re: Some general questions on GSMP References: <9985F17605D2D21192D80008C75DE4BE01FDD0E1@exchange4.ntu.edu.sg> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-gsmp@psyton.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: gsmp@psyton.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Gangxiang, Shen Gangxiang wrote: > Hi, folks, > > I am new in this discussion group. I have some questions on GSMP: > 1.Based on my understanding, it seems that GSMP is a protocol only to manage > connections in a switch, not those peer-to-peer connections(crossing > multiple links). To establish a peer-to-peer one, it needs to cooperate with > other protocols including routing protocols (e.g. OSPF) and signalling > protocol (e.g. CR-LDP) you're right, gsmp is intended for controlling switches. the peer-to-peer functions you describe is done by the control plane. it's possible though for one single controller to control several switches. > 2. If the controller and the controlled switch are deployed in the same box, > do we still need such a kind of protocol? as long as you're not planning to open up the box, i can't see that you _need_ a standardised protocol for that. however if you are a data plane vendor and source a control plane from another party, gsmp would fit in. > > Thanks in advance for any comment! > > Gangxiang thanks, ken