RE: MPLS OAM & the IETF
Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu> Wed, 06 March 2002 17:52 UTC
Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com
Delivery-date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 09:53:32 -0800
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 12:52:55 -0500
From: Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>
Message-Id: <200203061752.g26Hqt408319@newdev.harvard.edu>
To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org, Shahram_Davari@pmc-sierra.com, sob@harvard.edu
Subject: RE: MPLS OAM & the IETF
> Are these kind of cooperations considered in option 1? please advise ---- >From Shahram_Davari@pmc-sierra.com Wed Mar 6 11:35:12 2002 From: Shahram Davari <Shahram_Davari@pmc-sierra.com> To: "'Scott Bradner'" <sob@harvard.edu>, ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: RE: MPLS OAM & the IETF Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 08:34:58 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Scott, Could you please clarify option (1) a bit more? If this route is taken, still cooperation is needed between ITU and IETF. For example ITU may need MPLS signaling extensions. Also in some cases packet processing may need to be aligned between ITU and IETF in order to avoid conflicts. For example ITU may consider an MPLS path-trace that uses TTL expiration, which requires a TTL expired MPLS packet to be forwarded to MPLS OAM module, while GTTP considers sending MPLS TTL expired packets to ICMP/GTTP module. There needs to be a coordination between IETF and ITU in order to find a common method which could determine whether a packet should be forwarded to OAM or ICMP/GTTP module. Are these kind of cooperations considered in option 1? Shahram > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Bradner [mailto:sob@harvard.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 10:34 AM > To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org > Subject: MPLS OAM & the IETF > > > subject: MPLS OAM & the IETF > > The result of the MPLS OAM BOF in Salt Lake City has been > confirmed over > the last few days in the mailing list thread > "draft-bonica-tunneltrace-02." > > > That result was and is that there are at least two quite > different views on > the type of OAM tools and technologies needed for MPLS networks. > > My reading of the groups is that one group, who are mostly > concerned with > the transport of IP over MPLS, generally feel that tools > approximating the > traditional "ping" and "traceroute" tools used on IP networks are > sufficient. A second group seems to feel that those tools do > not provide > enough of a view of the service a customer is getting to be > sufficient and > that tools approximating traditional telephone system OAM > tools are needed > to get the complete picture. > > Meanwhile, the ITU-T has been working in this area and has a > document in > their equivalent of the IETF Last-Call. Brian Moore, the > ITU-T Study Group > 13 chair, kindly arraigned for the ITU-T document (known as > Y.1711) to be > put on an ftp site so interested IETF folk can take a look at > what they > have done. The URL is > http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/studygroups/com13/ip/sg13-ietf-ftp.ht ml (IETF folk have to register to use the FTP site.) It seems to me that there are two options on what we (the IETF) could do at this point. 0/ you think I do not understand the issue 1/ split the tasks: The IETF focus on the ping/traceroute mechanisms and cede to the ITU-T work on the more telco-like OAM. In this option the IETF would publish draft-ohta-mpls-label-value-01.txt as an RFC and assign an MPLS reserved label value for use by the ITU-T to identify Y.1711 information. 2/ The IETF work on a suite of technologies ranging from the ping/traceroute-like mechanisms to the more telephone system OAM ones. The IETF could try to figure out how to do this in conjunction with the ITU, though it is a bit late for that considering the state of Y.1711, or be in competition with the ITU-T. So - please indicate your opinion on how the IETF should proceed 1 - split the tasks between the IETF and the ITU-T 2 - IETF produce standards track documents covering both areas 2a - trying to work with the ITU-T to produce common technology 2b - in competition with the ITU-T In any case, it would be good to provide feedback to the ITU-T on Y.1711 if you see anything that looks broken. Scott (with sub-ip AD hat on)
- RE: MPLS OAM & the IETF Cuevas, Enrique G, ALASO
- RE: MPLS OAM & the IETF Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALASO
- RE: MPLS OAM & the IETF neil.2.harrison
- RE: MPLS OAM & the IETF Vip Sharma
- Re: MPLS OAM & the IETF Ping Pan
- RE: MPLS OAM & the IETF Don Fedyk
- Re: MPLS OAM & the IETF Mohammad Siddiqui
- Re: MPLS OAM & the IETF Thomas D. Nadeau
- Re: MPLS OAM & the IETF Matt Squire
- Re: MPLS OAM & the IETF Tom Petch
- Re: MPLS OAM & the IETF Yutaka SAKAI
- RE: MPLS OAM & the IETF Raj Sharma
- RE: MPLS OAM & the IETF Randy Bush
- RE: MPLS OAM & the IETF Scott Bradner
- RE: MPLS OAM & the IETF Mina Azad
- RE: MPLS OAM & the IETF David Allan
- RE: MPLS OAM & the IETF Shahram Davari
- RE: MPLS OAM & the IETF Joel M. Halpern
- RE: MPLS OAM & the IETF Shahram Davari
- RE: MPLS OAM & the IETF Shahram Davari
- RE: MPLS OAM & the IETF John Drake
- Re: MPLS OAM & the IETF Eric Rosen
- Re: MPLS OAM & the IETF Giles Heron
- RE: MPLS OAM & the IETF Gibson, Mark
- RE: MPLS OAM & the IETF neil.2.harrison
- Re: MPLS OAM & the IETF Giles Heron
- RE: MPLS OAM & the IETF Igor Faynberg
- RE: MPLS OAM & the IETF Scott Bradner
- Re: MPLS OAM & the IETF George Swallow
- RE: MPLS OAM & the IETF Shahram Davari
- RE: MPLS OAM & the IETF ananth.nagarajan
- MPLS OAM & the IETF Scott Bradner