I'd point that the scope of G.8113.1, a.k.a G.tpoam in regard to CCM is even more narrow then of the document being discussed. The G.8113.1 addresses only bi-directional co-routed LSP and has no model to handle bi-directional associated LSP in independent mode. And unidirectional p2p and p2mp LSPs are not addressed by the current revision of the G.8113.1.
Can all these out-of-scope constructs be used to conclude that G.8113.1 is not capable to solve these issues? I don't think so. Solutions are not readily available, that's all.
Regards,
Greg
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 1:38 PM, erminio.ottone_69@libero.it <erminio.ottone_69@libero.it> wrote:
>I would not go so far as to say "similar to 1731", there is actually a lot ofThe fact that the BFD WG has not defined a solution for unidirectional p2p and
difference under the hood. As for uni-directional BFD, that is a BFD WG problem
at the moment.
p2mp transport paths does not make BFD a suitable OAM protocol for MPLS-TP nor
does resolve the technical issue that have been raised.
>Data: 8-lug-2011 18.13
>A: "Rui Costa"<RCosta@ptinovacao.pt>, "Stewart Bryant"<stbryant@cisco.com>
>Cc: "erminio.ottone_69@libero.it"<erminio.ottone_69@libero.it>, "mpls@ietf.
org"<mpls@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org"<ietf@ietf.org>, "IETF-Announce"<ietf-
announce@ietf.org>
>Ogg: RE: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi-05.txt>
(Proactive Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check and Remote Defectindication for MPLS Transport Profile) to Proposed Standard
>
>Rui:
>
>You wrote:
>
>>Reading something, keeping it on record, without effect in the draft and
"ignoring comments" have IMHO similar outcomes. As author of the draft you are
free to do it. These standards have a great impact
>>in our work, so i'm also free to write what i did.
>
>Numerous comments did have effect on the draft and those that didn't were
either simply not actionable, were rhetorical or not constructive, and a few
had to be balanced against comments coming from the MPLS & BFD WGs. I would
translate "ingored" or "without effect" to "did not get one'e way". In the
standards process it happens.
>
>Meanwhile as an editor of the document, I'll take the liberty of responding
to some of the points you raise...
>
>>My technical concerns regarding this draft were expressed...
>>...in the (ITU-T -> IETF, Feb/2011) liaison regarding it (LS281, i
believe);
>>...in operators' meetings' that took place during ITU-T's Feb/2011 plenary
meeting;
>
>I and the WG don't really have access to private grumblings.
>
>>...in a comparison session that took place during that same ITU-T meeting.
>
>Lots of other opinions were expressed as well, and they did not all agree
with you.
>
>>Some:
>>CC/CV
>>I don't understand the need for 2 types of packets: a single type allows CC;
mismatching identifiers in the same CC packets allow CV.
>>Besides adding complexity, we whether always activate both or potentiate
undetected mismerges.
>
>OK, lets walk through this.
>
>We want CV all the time so that any misconectivity can be detected, but on
the list it was expressed that the group did not want the overhead of
processing the source MEP TLV in every packet in order to achieve this. We
could carry it in every packet and have the receiver simply ignore most of
them, but then that would make the defect entry criteria compeltely random and
the exit criteria unreliable as well, not really a good design. Hence they are
separated using different ACH code points and the receiver is obliged to
process every source MEP TLV it receives. I hope this is clear.
>
>>(BTW: can't understand how we propose one ACH codepoint to CC, another for
CV, [counting other drafts, another for frame loss ...] but don't consider
assigning 1 single ACH protocol identifier codepoint >as requested by ITU-T)
>
>Because that puts you into two protocol ID demultiplexing steps per OAM PDU
recevied to determine the intended function. Hence COSTS MORE. That is pretty
basic...
>
>> Uni P2P / P2MP
>> I can't see how BFD will support unidir and hence P2MP other than...
>> ...eliminating the session "state variable" (down, init, up), aiming just
the state variables we really need, bringing us to something similar to 1731,
eventually with other bits on the wire or...
>> ...using IP to create the reverse way, which we cannot assume per
requirements;
>> Will we create a complete different tool for that?
>> (BFD's B="bidirectional")
>
>I would not go so far as to say "similar to 1731", there is actually a lot of
difference under the hood. As for uni-directional BFD, that is a BFD WG problem
at the moment.
>
>> Provisioning list
>> This is an MPLS profile/subset (and i heard) achievable through a
particular configuration. So, i expect each draft-ietf-mpls-TP-* to focus on
that profile/configuration. However, i keep seeing
>> references f.i. to IP encapsulations unexpected under TP's OAM.
>> I don't thus understand what the aim is: do we expect this in TP, are we
talking about MPLS in general?... The TP profile is never quite delimited.
>> Does chapter 4 contain ALL the configurable parameters list agreed to
provide in the comparison session?
>
>It should. As for encapsulations, unless TP is in a complete island not
connected to anything (which as a network is rather useless) it will be
expected to interoperate with the rest of the MPLS architecture, and the stated
intention of tool development was that what resulted was applicable to the
broader MPLS architecture. Which means backwards compatiblity and procedures
for interoperation.
>
>> Backwards compatibility
>> This was the main argument risen to ground MPLS-TP OAM on BFD. It's not a
better argument than grounding MPLS-TP OAM on 1731 due to its ETH deployment
plus coherence with SDH, OTN, as defended by ITU-T.
>> For reasons like the above, however, MPLS-TP BFD won't be backwards
compatible with previous BFD (even considering just CC/CV). They don't even
share the same codepoint.
>
>The issue is not code point, which is the trivial part. It is reuse of the
majority of the implementation. Again, pretty basic.
>
>>Simplicity
>>Whether we look to PDH, SDH, OTN or ETH, ITU-T's approach to CC is simpler:
in each flow, a standard defined nr of constant heartbeat signals (with
standard constant or provisioned period - no
>>auto/negotiated -) means OK. A standard defined number of misses means lost
Rx connection. An RDI, the only articulation between Rx and Tx flows,
meaningful in bidirectional applications, allows each
>>pear to identify Tx problems.
>>This OAM simplicity is the key for reliable fail finger pointing,
performance reports and protection. Also to allow scaling, more implementation
opportunities/manufacturers, which is valuable for
>>operators.
>
>Well IMO there was not a lot of interest in T-MPLS until the IETF was going
to re-define it and make it compatible with IP/MPLS. So there was an industry
wide "design intent" implied here.
>
>> IMHO, between your MPLS-TP view and MPLS/IP, it becomes more and more
difficult to tell which is which.
>
>That is because MPLS-TP is not a new techology, it is an addition to the
entire MPLS protocol suite.
>
>Hope this helps
>D
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: David Allan I [mailto:david.i.allan@ericsson.com]
>Sent: quarta-feira, 6 de Julho de 2011 19:25
>Subject: RE: [mpls] R: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi-05.txt>indication for MPLS Transport Profile) to Proposed Standard
(Proactive Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check and Remote Defect
>>E> This is a true statement: the solution in this draft is useless for many
>Hi Erminio:
>
><snipped>
>>Several service providers regarded this draft as not meeting their
>>transport networks' needs.
>
MPLS- TP deployments.
>
>The two statements do not necessarily follow.
>
>What we established during discussions at the SG15 plenary in February was
that the issue some service providers had was that the IETF BFD solution
exceeded their requirements in that there was additional functionality they did
not see a need for, and that they considered any additional functionality
parasitic.
>
>However this is a consequence of adapting an existing technology to a new
application. I do not see any way around that. And the entire joint project was
based on the premise of engineering re-use not greenfield design. That is what
it said on the tin up front, and IMO why when the IETF started down this path
packet transport transitioned from being a minority sport to mainstream, so it
is a bit late to cry foul....
>
>My 2 cents
>Dave
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: David Allan I [mailto:david.i.allan@ericsson.com]
>Sent: quarta-feira, 6 de Julho de 2011 18:36
>To: erminio.ottone_69@libero.it; loa@pi.nu; Rui Costaindication for MPLS Transport Profile) to Proposed Standard
>Cc: mpls@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; IETF-Announce
>Subject: RE: [mpls] R: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi-05.txt>
(Proactive Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check and Remote Defect
>
>Hi Erminio:
>
>Two of the three document editors were present at SG15 plenary in February
where the comments originated. The revised meeting schedule resulted in a day
spent going through the document with the editors. IMO there were lots of
discussion and legitimate issues with the document identified and corrected so
it was a useful session. The liaison of same was in many ways *after the
fact*.
>
>Cheers
>Dave
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: erminio.ottone_69@libero.it [mailto:erminio.ottone_69@libero.it]
>Sent: quarta-feira, 6 de Julho de 2011 18:34
>Subject: R: Re: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi-05.txt>
(Proactive Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check and Remote Defect
indication for MPLS Transport Profile) to Proposed Standard
>
>The way this draft has been developed is a bit strange.
>
>The poll for its adoption as a WG document was halted by the MPLS WG chair
because "it is not possible to judge consensus":
>
>http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls/current/msg04502.html
>
>The lack of consensus was motivated by serious technical concerns raised by
several transport experts during the poll.
>
>Nevertheless the MPLS WG chair decided to adopt the draft as a WG document:
>
>http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls/current/msg04512.html
>
>After several WG revisions and WG LCs, the technical issues have not been
resolved.
>
>>Several service providers regarded this draft as not meeting their>This is a true statement: the solution in this draft is useless for many
>>transport
>networks' needs.
>
MPLS- TP deployments.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: erminio.ottone_69@libero.it [mailto:erminio.ottone_69@libero.it]
>Sent: quarta-feira, 6 de Julho de 2011 18:26
>To: loa@pi.nu; Rui Costaindication for MPLS Transport Profile) to Proposed Standard
>Cc: mpls@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; IETF-Announce
>Subject: R: Re: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi-05.txt>
(Proactive Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check and Remote Defect
>
>> Version -04 of the document was published June 28th.
>>
>> The publication request for draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi was sent
>> June 29th.
>>
>
>So when the WG LC to confirm the LC comment resolution has been launched?
>
>The proto write-up says:
>
> It has also passed a working roup call to verify that LC comments
were correctly with minor comments.
>
>It also says:
>
> The comments has been
> carefully discussed between the authors and people making the
comments and
> has been resolved.
>
>But it seems that some comments have not been discussed with the authors of
the comments. When ITU-T Q10/15 has been involved in discussing its comments?
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Loa Andersson [mailto:loa@pi.nu]
>Sent: quarta-feira, 6 de Julho de 2011 16:44
>To: Rui Costa
>Subject: Re: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi-05.txt>
(Proactive Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check and Remote Defect
indication for MPLS Transport Profile) to Proposed Standard
>
>All,
>
>Since someone has commented about the process used for resolving
>questions on
>draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi I am supplying some details below.
>
>The history of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi working group review
>process is:
>
>On February 3rd 2011 the working group last call was issued
>on version -03
>
> This was copied to the the Ad Hoc Team List
> and liaised to SG15 also on February 3rd
>
> This working group last call ended om Feb 28
>
>
> On Feb 28 we also received a liaison with comments from SG15
>
>
>The authors compiled a list of all comments received as part the MPLS
>working group last call; these comments - and the intended resolution -
>is included in the meeting minutes from the Prague meeting:
>
>
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/80/slides/mpls-9.pdf
>
>
> During the IETF meeting in Prague, we agreed with the BFD working
> group to do a separate working group last callfor the BFD working
> group
>
>The (BFD) working group last call was started on March 30th and ran
>for 13 days. The last call ended on April 11th.
>
> The authors have since worked hard to resolve comments, some
> issue has been brought to the working group mailing list for
> resolution.
>
> Version -04 of the document was published June 28th.
>
> The publication request for draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi was sent
> June 29th.
>
> The AD review resulted in a "New ID needed" due to mostly editorial
> comments. Version -05 was published on June 29 and the IETF last call
> started as soon as the new ID was avaialbe.
>
> The current list of Last Call Comments resoltion is also avaiable at:
> http://www.pi.nu/~loa/cc-cv-rdi-Last-Call-Comments.xls
>
> The list of issues that the authors kept very carefully, shows without
>doubt
> that no comments been ignored.
>
> Loa
> mpls wg document shepherd
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: David Allan I [mailto:david.i.allan@ericsson.com]
>Sent: quarta-feira, 6 de Julho de 2011 14:58
>Subject: RE: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi-05.txt>
(Proactive Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check and Remote Defect
indication for MPLS Transport Profile) to Proposed Standardthose collected from the MPLS WG was presented at the last IETF. My spreadsheet
>
>Hi Rui:
>
>The comments were not ignored, the resolution of the Q10 comments as well as
from which that report was generated and has been augmented to include the BFDWG comments is available at http://www.pi.nu/~loa/cc-cv-rdi-Last-Call-Comments.
xls
>
>So you know...
>Dave
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ietf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Rui>To: ietf@ietf.org; IETF-Announce
Costa
>Sent: segunda-feira, 4 de Julho de 2011 23:03
>Cc: mpls@ietf.org
>Subject: RE: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi-05.txt>
(Proactive Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check and Remote Defectindication for MPLS Transport Profile) to Proposed Standard
>
>IMHO and for the record:
>
>ITU-T comments regarding this draft haven't been discussed with ITU-T but
were simply ignored. No LS describing these comments' resolution was sent.
>
>Several service providers regarded this draft as not meeting their transport
networks' needs.
>
>[The v03 draft was published in Feb and went to WG LC.>Subject: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi-05.txt> (Proactive
>The v04 draft addressing WG LC comments was published on the 28th June (same
date as the proto write-up).
>When was the WG LC launched, to verify LC comments resolution?]
>
>Regards,
>Rui
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: mpls-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of The
IESG
>Sent: quinta-feira, 30 de Junho de 2011 14:47
>To: IETF-Announce
>Cc: mpls@ietf.org
Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check and Remote Defect indication for
MPLS Transport Profile) to Proposed Standard
>
>
>_______________________________________________>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@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-07-14. Exceptionally, comments may be
>sent to iesg@ietf.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.
>_______________________________________________
>Ietf mailing list
>Ietf@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
_______________________________________________ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
