MPLS and NETLMM (was RE: a couple of high-view questions)

All,
There has been some discussion lately about the use of MPLS
LSPs to
carry NETLMM signaling. Traffic engineering has been quoted
as a reason
to do this. I'm trying to understand the vision behind this
and what
kind of traffic engineering benefits people see this
offering. 

I agree with Vijay's statement that TE would lead to per-MN
LSPs and
that isn't exactly scalable. 

So, is it just the thought of exploiting the existence of
MPLS backbones
for transport of NETLMM signaling between the AR and MN? Or,
are there
more reasons behind this? 

Thanks,
Vidya  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: netlmm-adminngnet.it [mailto:netlmm-adminngnet.it]
On 
> Behalf Of Vijay Devarapalli
> Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 9:15 AM
> To: Pekka Savola
> Cc: Alexandru Petrescu; James Kempf; netlmmngnet.it
> Subject: Re: [netlmm] a couple of high-view questions
> 
> Pekka Savola wrote:
> > On Tue, 16 May 2006, Vijay Devarapalli wrote:
> >>> If an operator would want to do such a
thing, they'll 
> have to bear 
> >>> the operational cost (lots of new state)
and signalling 
> that it implies.
> >>
> >> well, you see per-node GTP tunnels today.
> > 
> > Well, I thought the purpose was to design
something sane 
> and scalable, 
> > not reinvent past follies 
> > 
> > Seriously, it might be useful to point out why
exactly per-node GTP 
> > tunnels are being used and why it was designed the
way it was.
> 
> the last thing I would be doing is to defend the
current 3G 
> architecture. no way. 
> 
> the main target for NETLMM work seems to be mobile
operators.
> I am not yet convinced that MPLS could be used in an
mobile 
> operators access network the way folks have been
talking 
> about here on this mailing list.
> 
> Vijay
> _______________________________________________
> netlmm mailing list
> netlmmngnet.it
> https://vesuvio.ipv6.cselt.it/mailman/listinfo/netlmm
> 

_______________________________________________
netlmm mailing list
netlmmngnet.it
https://vesuvio.ipv6.cselt.it/mailman/listinfo/netlmm

Hi Vidya,

on 2006-05-18 01:59 Narayanan, Vidya said the following:
> All,
> There has been some discussion lately about the use of
MPLS LSPs to
> carry NETLMM signaling. Traffic engineering has been
quoted as a reason
> to do this. I'm trying to understand the vision behind
this and what
> kind of traffic engineering benefits people see this
offering. 
> 
> I agree with Vijay's statement that TE would lead to
per-MN LSPs and
> that isn't exactly scalable. 

This isn't immediately obvious to me -- why would this be
so?

Having for instance 3 different traffic classes would, in my
understanding, lead to 3 LSPs between local mobility anchor
(LMA)
and mobility access gateway (MAG), rather than per-MN LSPs.

What have I missed here?

(Since my understanding of MPLS is limited, I'd not at all
be surprised
if there's something I've missed, and I'd be happy to
have someone direct
me to the relevant information...)


Regards,

	Henrik

> So, is it just the thought of exploiting the existence
of MPLS backbones
> for transport of NETLMM signaling between the AR and
MN? Or, are there
> more reasons behind this? 
> 
> Thanks,
> Vidya  
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: netlmm-adminngnet.it
[mailto:netlmm-adminngnet.it] On 
>> Behalf Of Vijay Devarapalli
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 9:15 AM
>> To: Pekka Savola
>> Cc: Alexandru Petrescu; James Kempf; netlmmngnet.it
>> Subject: Re: [netlmm] a couple of high-view
questions
>> 
>> Pekka Savola wrote:
>> > On Tue, 16 May 2006, Vijay Devarapalli wrote:
>> >>> If an operator would want to do such a
thing, they'll 
>> have to bear 
>> >>> the operational cost (lots of new
state) and signalling 
>> that it implies.
>> >>
>> >> well, you see per-node GTP tunnels today.
>> > 
>> > Well, I thought the purpose was to design
something sane 
>> and scalable, 
>> > not reinvent past follies 
>> > 
>> > Seriously, it might be useful to point out why
exactly per-node GTP 
>> > tunnels are being used and why it was designed
the way it was.
>> 
>> the last thing I would be doing is to defend the
current 3G 
>> architecture. no way. 
>> 
>> the main target for NETLMM work seems to be mobile
operators.
>> I am not yet convinced that MPLS could be used in
an mobile 
>> operators access network the way folks have been
talking 
>> about here on this mailing list.
>> 
>> Vijay
>> _______________________________________________
>> netlmm mailing list
>> netlmmngnet.it
>> https://vesuvio.ipv6.cselt.it/mailman/listinfo/netlmm
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netlmm mailing list
> netlmmngnet.it
> https://vesuvio.ipv6.cselt.it/mailman/listinfo/netlmm
>