IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: comments on "draft-salam-l2vpn-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-02":

"Xialiang (Frank)" <frank.xialiang@huawei.com> Thu, 27 March 2014 03:47 UTC

Return-Path: <frank.xialiang@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 484CA1A0077 for <l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Mar 2014 20:47:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9zML_w86gIxt for <l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Mar 2014 20:47:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 781A91A0048 for <l2vpn@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Mar 2014 20:47:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BCL99062; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 03:47:12 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML405-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 03:46:45 +0000
Received: from SZXEMA409-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.72.41) by lhreml405-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 03:47:11 +0000
Received: from SZXEMA502-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.203]) by SZXEMA409-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.82.72.41]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 11:47:04 +0800
From: "Xialiang (Frank)" <frank.xialiang@huawei.com>
To: "ssalam@cisco.com" <ssalam@cisco.com>, "sajassi@cisco.com" <sajassi@cisco.com>, "aldrin.ietf@gmail.com" <aldrin.ietf@gmail.com>, "jdrake@juniper.net" <jdrake@juniper.net>
Subject: RE: comments on "draft-salam-l2vpn-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-02":
Thread-Topic: comments on "draft-salam-l2vpn-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-02":
Thread-Index: Ac9CeLdIKfj9gmHqQoGb/BpQJYep2gG9hWHQ
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 03:47:03 +0000
Message-ID: <C02846B1344F344EB4FAA6FA7AF481F10F3E135F@SZXEMA502-MBS.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.135.42.220]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C02846B1344F344EB4FAA6FA7AF481F10F3E135FSZXEMA502MBSchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/l2vpn/psEnNTBWia72mirVr0ZPxmjhOWg
Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" <l2vpn@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: l2vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks <l2vpn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/l2vpn>, <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/l2vpn/>
List-Post: <mailto:l2vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2vpn>, <mailto:l2vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 03:47:17 -0000

Hi draft authors,
I have posted my comments about this draft 10 days ago, and don't get your feedback until now.
So, I send this email again to notify you and hope to get your clarification.
Thanks!

B.R.
Frank

From: Xialiang (Frank)
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 3:07 PM
To: 'ssalam@cisco.com'.com'; 'sajassi@cisco.com'.com'; 'aldrin.ietf@gmail.com'.com'; 'jdrake@juniper.net'
Cc: l2vpn@ietf.org
Subject: comments on "draft-salam-l2vpn-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-02":

Hi authors,
I have reviewed this important draft, and have some comments as below:
1. By comparing with RFC6136 (L2VPN OAM req and frm), from the integrity point of view, I think there are some part missing: EVPN MEP and MIP, Discovery, Data Path Forwarding, Scalability, Transport/Application Independence;
2. In section 3.1.1.1, what is the definition of per user flow? Why is it different to support it between E-VPN Network OAM and E-VPN Service OAM?
3. In section 3.1.1.1, does the section of "a representative path" mean using test flow to detect the node failure? if yes, how to do? Is it a necessary requirement of proactive fault detection?
4. In section 3.2.1, I do not quite understand the describing reason for the inaccuracy of Loss Measurement. Do you mean that test packets of Loss Measurement are all BUM packets? Can you clarify why peer MEPs will receive some unnecessary packets? Why not use unicast packets for Loss Measurement?

Hoping for your feedback~~

B.R.
Frank

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email