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@xxxxxxxx [mailto:mpls-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of The IESG
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 10:46 PM
To: IETF-Announce
Cc: mpls@xxxxxxxx
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@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2011-08-25. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx 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@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
--
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf