George Swallow

Updated draft based on presentation in Stockholm

Changed LSP-ID to have only one LSP-Num since this is sufficient to be unique within the context of the rest of the LSP-ID

Added an IP format for LSP-MEG-IDs Added a stab at PW Maintenance Point IDs MEP-ID was removed from this draft based

on some discussions in Stockholm – will be added back if there is consensus to do so

Accepted as a workgroup draft

Draft has been republished as draft-ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers-00.txt

LSP-num – 16 bit identifier as in RFC3209Unique within scope of tunnel

LSP-ID formed as local{[Sp-ID]::node::Tun-ID}

+remote{[Sp-ID]::node::Tun-ID}::LSP-ID◦ Canonical Format of LSP-ID

lower ([Sp-ID]::Node-ID) goes first◦ Compatible with GMPLS signaling

Tunnels◦ MEG-ID = Tunnel-ID◦ MEP-ID ::= [SP-ID]::Node-ID::Tunnel-num

LSPsMEG-ID::=local{[Sp-ID]::node::Tun-ID}+remote{[Sp-ID]::node::Tun-ID}::LSP-MEG-Num◦ Canonical Format of LSP-ID

lower ([Sp-ID]::Node-ID) goes first◦ MEP-ID::= [SP-ID]::Node-ID::Tunnel-num::LSP-

Num

+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+

| | | | | | | |

| A|---------|B C|---------|D E|---------|F |

| | | | | | | |

+-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+

T-PE1 S-PE2 S-PE3 T-PE4

The identification for the Pseudowire is:AGI = AGI1

Src-Global_ID = GID1

Src-Node_ID = T-PE1

Src-AC_ID = AII1

Dst-Global_ID = GID1

Dst-Node_ID = T-PE1

Dst-AC_ID = AII4

MEP_ID at point A = AGI1::GID1:T-PE1::AII1.

The MP_ID at point C = AGI1::GID1:T-PE1::AII1::GID1:S-PE2.

T-PE is acting as the segment endpoint, it too may use the MP_ID.

1. We have two means of identifying operators. Need to define scope of applicability of each

2. Details on MEP and MIP identifiers are subject to ongoing discussions.

3. Based on some discussion in Stockholm, ITU style identifiers for MEPs and MIPs were removed from this version. However, consensus for this needs to be verified.

4. Pseudowire Maintenance Points need to be kept aligned with the model for Pseudowire maintenance.

5. Identifiers for P2MP entities

6. Tandem connection Identification - the identification should be exactly the same as any other MPLS-TP LSP. However, in the ACH TLV draft we could have a different TLV with the same format as an MPLS-TP LSP, if there are places where the distinction becomes important.

Current Status: Two formatsGlobal-ID as per RFC5003ITU Carrier Code

Issue:Should these be combinable with all other

identifiers that need global uniquenessOr should some limits exist on mixing and matching

ITU and IP style IDs?Needs to be sorted for ACH-TLV draftBalance of presentation using “SP-ID” as

placeholder without specifying which one(s)