[CCAMP] Questions on draft-vkst-mpls-tp-oam-id-mib-01

Jaihari Kalijanakiraman <jaiharik@ipinfusion.com> Tue, 03 January 2012 17:26 UTC

Return-Path: <jaiharik@ipinfusion.com>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BB6621F84BE; Tue, 3 Jan 2012 09:26:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.241
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.241 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_SUB_OBFU_OTHER=0.135]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EZdiscBJcO1T; Tue, 3 Jan 2012 09:26:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0855F21F84BC; Tue, 3 Jan 2012 09:26:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by iabz21 with SMTP id z21so10003567iab.31 for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 03 Jan 2012 09:26:50 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.50.168.2 with SMTP id zs2mr64477360igb.21.1325611610669; Tue, 03 Jan 2012 09:26:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.231.223.131 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Jan 2012 09:26:50 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 22:56:50 +0530
Message-ID: <CABU764s08xA-sVn8oBw56_w+uWZ0JTggWpp0oXmv+edZ__eofg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jaihari Kalijanakiraman <jaiharik@ipinfusion.com>
To: mpls@ietf.org, ccamp@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f83a53f2a039f04b5a30157
Cc: Jaihari Kalijanakiraman <jaiharik@ipinfusion.com>
Subject: [CCAMP] Questions on draft-vkst-mpls-tp-oam-id-mib-01
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp>
List-Post: <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 17:26:51 -0000

Hi Authors,

Happy new year to all..

I have few queries on the draft..

1. The draft "draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf-03<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf-03>"
talks about configuration of various OAM functions for an LSP or MEG.
Shouldnt the MIB have objects to configure these OAM functions as part of
MEG configuration?

2. Will this MIB be enhanced also to configure "*Y.1731 based OAM for
MPLS-TP*"?

3. The ME table has objects for configuring PhbTCValues for OAM packets. As
per MPLS-TP OAM framework, the OAM packets has to fate share with the data
traffic. If thats the case, what is the use for these objects?

4. The RFC 6427 "*MPLS Fault Management OAM*" talks about server layer MEP
sending FM message to the client layer MEPs.. How these server-client
relationships be configured or derived? Shouldnt there be objects for
identifying the server-client relationships??


*Thanks & Regards,*
*Jai Hari M.K.
IP Infusion.*