ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-on-demand-cv-06.txt> (MPLSOn-demand Connectivity Verification and Route Tracing) toProposed Standard

2011-08-25 11:34:21
Hi,

I would like to propose that this draft explicitly stipulate whether or not it covers per-interface model. I think it is essential to avoid confusion and clarify the appropriate I-D to discuss OAM solutions for the per-interface model.

"Per-interface model" is one of the two OAM maintenance models in MPLS-TP networks which is specified in section 3 of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-framework.

The solution for the per-interface model is under discussion also in the per-interface MIP draft ( http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-farrel-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map-04 ). If the on-demand-cv-06 covers the OAM solution for per-interface model, the discussion for on-demand CV and route tracing must be removed from the mip-mep-map draft. Otherwise, the mip-mep-map draft has to cover the solutions for on-demand CV and route tracing.

I also think that it is important to clarify the comments from Mr. Zhenlong Cui in the draft, whose email is attached at the bottom. It is important to make clear for what purpose the "IF_Num" is used. It also seems important to clarify the responder's behavior, because the ambiguity will definitely lead to interoperability issues.

Thank you in advance.

Best regards,

Yoshinori Koike

(2011/08/25 15:17), Zhenlong Cui wrote:
Hi,

I have sent some questions regarding the IF_Num of DSMAP TLV before. I'd like 
to make sure it is not lost.

   2.1.  New address type for Downstream Mapping TLV
    The new address type indicates that no address is present in the
    DSMAP or DDMAP TLV.  However, IF_Num information (see definition of
    "IF_NUM" in [I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers]) for both ingress and
    egress interfaces, as well as multipath information is included in
    the format and MAY be present.


I believe the "IF_Num" can be used for per-interface MIP model.
But I'm not sure why we need use both "ingress IF_Num" and "egress IF_Num" in a 
DSMAP TLV.
I can't find this case (Ingress_IF::Egress_IF) in 
[I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers].

  e.g.) the following are defined in [I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers] using 
"IF_Num", but there is no Ingress_IF::Egress_IF.
  - "IF_ID"
     IF_ID is a 64-bit identifier formed as Node_ID::IF_Num.
  - "MIP ID"
    For a MIP which is associated with particular interface, we simply
    use the IF_ID (see Section 4) of the interfaces which are cross-
    connected.

If have any special means in the "IF_Num", I think MUST mention it clearly.
Also I feeling that this draft have to clarify the responder's behavior for each IF 
information of the "IF_Num".


Best regards,
zhenlong


-----Original Message-----
From: mpls-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org 
[mailto:mpls-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of The IESG
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 10:46 PM
To: IETF-Announce
Cc: mpls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: [mpls] Last Call:<draft-ietf-mpls-tp-on-demand-cv-06.txt>  
(MPLSOn-demand Connectivity Verification and Route
Tracing) toProposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG
(mpls) to consider the following document:
- 'MPLS On-demand Connectivity Verification and Route Tracing'
   <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-on-demand-cv-06.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 2011-08-25. 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

    Label Switched Path Ping (LSP-Ping) is an existing and widely
    deployed Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) mechanism
    for Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths
    (LSPs).  This document describes extensions to LSP-Ping so that LSP-
    Ping can be used for On-demand Connectivity Verification of MPLS
    Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) LSPs and Pseudowires.  This document also
    clarifies procedures to be used for processing the related OAM
    packets.  Further, it describes procedures for using LSP-Ping to
    perform Connectivity Verification and Route Tracing functions in
    MPLS-TP networks.  Finally this document updates RFC 4379 by adding a
    new address type and requesting an IANA registry.


The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-on-demand-cv/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-on-demand-cv/


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



--
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>