IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Sam Aldrin <aldrin.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 31 March 2014 03:58 UTC

Return-Path: <aldrin.ietf@gmail.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 CC2CA1A0960 for <l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Mar 2014 20:58:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 MpGRWcf1ZIYE for <l2vpn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Mar 2014 20:58:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pd0-x22a.google.com (mail-pd0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0FEA1A094C for <l2vpn@ietf.org>; Sun, 30 Mar 2014 20:58:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pd0-f170.google.com with SMTP id v10so7408571pde.15 for <l2vpn@ietf.org>; Sun, 30 Mar 2014 20:58:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=references:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:cc:from:subject:date:to; bh=WhDEthzXG+mzpr+uVg+p5KrVaL33QNahXmcfbFVHyBs=; b=uSW7yjzGKR3QOkZyWqCygPT/Me8FyhxG6FZfgg0+rmw7vWkgMD7DlDuW8NA0m0Vi40 4A4Z6uHKfJU4TixS2wxoYZ99Rrd8aOjkYGApRxbMDhIKU6AtQ6vD1/6kBHKzYuEOpmdq VgjCTYchIigbip3nSR4u0eycZW4OvCRrfu8J58FsqdD4iw7t6Ubw/PNeTc60whO2s76Y 6D5iLyQigBAIuibZfhARNHvJ29MgADv206eK5bee/jbzcIUil/P7e1V0IT84/FwhkzsU ZRVGg2wquNmye83VXTOC47JBeR9fvQRmcvui0ho2fRkcVKZdK9DzdHe2xt7aiIx9zuhS n1Pw==
X-Received: by 10.66.26.81 with SMTP id j17mr22425801pag.87.1396238281714; Sun, 30 Mar 2014 20:58:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.65.17.169] (mobile-198-228-222-036.mycingular.net. [198.228.222.36]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id vb7sm40311928pbc.13.2014.03.30.20.58.00 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 30 Mar 2014 20:58:00 -0700 (PDT)
References: <C02846B1344F344EB4FAA6FA7AF481F10F3E135F@SZXEMA502-MBS.china.huawei.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <C02846B1344F344EB4FAA6FA7AF481F10F3E135F@SZXEMA502-MBS.china.huawei.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-F01BE61B-DFB4-4B30-BD7B-B37749454BDC
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <C9E896E7-D6AD-4A98-BDF8-2613F8CD7903@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (11D167)
From: Sam Aldrin <aldrin.ietf@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: comments on "draft-salam-l2vpn-evpn-oam-req-frmwk-02":
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2014 20:57:59 -0700
To: "Xialiang (Frank)" <frank.xialiang@huawei.com>
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/l2vpn/ut5ZOEk8WzaOJwqzB0YOsgJEaJI
Cc: "l2vpn@ietf.org" <l2vpn@ietf.org>, "sajassi@cisco.com" <sajassi@cisco.com>
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: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 03:58:06 -0000

Frank,
Got the email. Sorry for the delay. One if us will get back to you, soon

Cheers
Sam
Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 26, 2014, at 8:47 PM, "Xialiang (Frank)" <frank.xialiang@huawei.com> wrote:
> 
> 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