Hi Robert,
Thank you very much for your reply,
and I am sorry for my late response.
See inline, marked with [HE];
________________________________________
From: mpls-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org [mpls-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On
Behalf Of hideki(_dot_)endo(_dot_)es(_at_)hitachi(_dot_)com
[hideki(_dot_)endo(_dot_)es(_at_)hitachi(_dot_)com]
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 7:22 AM
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)or; mpls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [mpls] Last Call:
<draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi-05.txt>(Proactive Connectivit
The changes in this version have massive impact for CC/CV/RDI implementation.
We, venders, have kept making efforts on interoperability test again and
again.
These changes spoil this effort.
Especially, revival of Poll/Final sequence doesn't make sense.
Originally, in my understanding, Poll/Final sequence was excluded from this
draft
to avoid making HW implementation difficult.
[RR] preventing a peer from modifying the rate once the initial target rate
was achieved i.e arbitrary re-negotiation was and is excluded, that was the
"problem" the group consensus was to solve.
However P/F is needed to get from the initial 1 per second default rate to the
desired rate. This and the rational for an initial P/F were discussed in
detail back in March /April.
[HE]My understanding is far from yours.
The cc-cv-rdi-03 said
"Poll/final discipline can only used for VCCV and UDP/IP encapsulated BFD.".
In my understanding, this meant that Poll/Final Sequence MUST NOT be used for
GAL/G-ACh.
In other words, GAL/G-ACh MUST work well without Poll/Final Sequence
in the case of getting from initial state.
I think this was the group consensus.
If the consensus was only for re-negotiation, why was P/F excluded from
GAL/G-ACh?
Even though it was difficult to change CC interval arbitrary,
the problem should be solved by defining how to transit DOWN/INIT state to UP
state.
[RR] There is no problem in defining how to transit from Down/Init to UP
state, it's covered in the existing state machine and is not changed.
[HE]Sorry for lack of explanation.
I meant the interval change timing should be defined in the case of transition
DOWN/INIT to UP state
without P/F sequence for GAL/G-ACh.
BR,
Hideki
Cheers
Rob
The direction which reached consensus once should NOT be changed easily
in order to respond to the market requirements.
IMO, such major changes should NOT be added right before becoming RFC.
I found at least four major/minor changes as follows;
1)Revival of Poll/Final sequence
2)Change of MEP ID formats
3)Change of Diag. Code
4)Change of CV interleaved definition
BR,
Hideki
The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG
(mpls) to consider the following document:
- 'Proactive Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check and Remote
Defect indication for MPLS Transport Profile'
<draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi-05.txt> as a Proposed Standard
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(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by 2011-07-14. Exceptionally, comments
may be
sent to iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
Abstract
Continuity Check, Proactive Connectivity Verification and Remote
Defect Indication functionalities are required for MPLS-TP OAM.
Continuity Check monitors the integrity of the continuity of the
label switched path for any loss of continuity defect. Connectivity
verification monitors the integrity of the routing of the label
switched path between sink and source for any connectivity issues.
Remote defect indication enables an End Point to report, to its
associated End Point, a fault or defect condition that it detects on
a pseudo wire, label switched path or Section.
This document specifies methods for proactive continuity check,
continuity verification, and remote defect indication for MPLS-TP
label switched paths, pseudo wires and Sections using Bidirectional
Forwarding Detection.
The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi/
IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi/
No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains
information which is CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom.
If you have received this transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail,
phone or fax, and then delete the original and all copies thereof.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf