Re: [Mpls-interop] MPLS-TP OAM requirements - AIS/LockNotif - Can MIPs send "usolicited" OAM messages ?

Huub van Helvoort <hhelvoort@chello.nl> Mon, 04 May 2009 22:01 UTC

Return-Path: <hhelvoort@chello.nl>
X-Original-To: mpls-interop@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls-interop@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4E7D3A69B4 for <mpls-interop@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 May 2009 15:01:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.328
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.328 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.102, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_AT=0.424, HOST_EQ_AT=0.745]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id i97IglgKb0wN for <mpls-interop@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 May 2009 15:01:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from viefep19-int.chello.at (viefep19-int.chello.at [62.179.121.39]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E07EB3A70B9 for <mpls-interop@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 May 2009 15:01:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from edge01.upc.biz ([192.168.13.236]) by viefep19-int.chello.at (InterMail vM.7.09.01.00 201-2219-108-20080618) with ESMTP id <20090504220303.WQAT19075.viefep19-int.chello.at@edge01.upc.biz>; Tue, 5 May 2009 00:03:03 +0200
Received: from McAsterix.local ([24.132.228.153]) by edge01.upc.biz with edge id na321b01R3KDBhC01a33dj; Tue, 05 May 2009 00:03:03 +0200
X-SourceIP: 24.132.228.153
Message-ID: <49FF6616.3050905@chello.nl>
Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 00:03:02 +0200
From: Huub van Helvoort <hhelvoort@chello.nl>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Macintosh/20090302)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: George Swallow <swallow@cisco.com>
References: <C624ADFD.12992%swallow@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <C624ADFD.12992%swallow@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: mpls-interop@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Mpls-interop] MPLS-TP OAM requirements - AIS/LockNotif - Can MIPs send "usolicited" OAM messages ?
X-BeenThere: mpls-interop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: hhelvoort@chello.nl
List-Id: IETF MPLS Interoperability Design Team <mpls-interop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-interop>, <mailto:mpls-interop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls-interop>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls-interop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-interop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-interop>, <mailto:mpls-interop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 22:01:44 -0000

Hello George,

You wrote:

> I very much agree with Martin here.
> 
> In MPLS-TP the MEG level is not explicit.  It is inferred from the LSP the
> OAM is received on.  In typical LSRs, a Server layer down event, e.g. The
> failure of a link results in an "Interface Down Event".  When this occurs
> all clients of that interface that have registered for the event would be
> notified.  Further notification of peer entities is the responsibility of
> those clients.

I agree with this as well.

> So to me it makes a great deal of sense to have the MEP serving the link
> declare that the IF is down, and have the client MIPs be responsible for
> sending any needed OAM messages regarding that event.

The notification of the "interface down event" should be
accomplished by inserting the OAM message (server failed)
in the adaptation function of the server layer MEP.

Regards, Huub.

-- 
================================================================
Always remember that you are unique...just like everyone else...