Re: [Mpls-interop] MPLS-TP OAM requirements - Lockandnotificationoflock

["Lam, Hing-Kam \(Kam\)" <[e-mail]>]

Malcolm,

 

How this would work is a solution issue or even an implementation issue.

Fortunately the MIP of LSP A-F at Node C and the MEP of LSP CD at Node C are in the same node (Node C).

Similarly the MIP of LSP A-F at Node D and the MEP of LSP CD at Node D are in the same node (Node D).

This may help in finding a solution.

 

But I think it is reasonable to have a requirement to avoid unnecessary alarm against the client services due to the server LSP's entering the Locked state.

 

Regards,

Kam 

 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Malcolm Betts [mailto:[e-mail]]

> Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 10:36 AM

> To: Lam, Hing-Kam (Kam); VIGOUREUX, MARTIN (MARTIN)

> Cc: [e-mail]

> Subject: RE: [Mpls-interop] MPLS-TP OAM requirements -

> Lockandnotificationoflock

> 

> Kam,

> 

> I am not too sure about this.  From a NM perspective you are correct,

> however how would this work in the data plane.

> 

> Consider the case of a client LSP A-B-C-D-E-F that uses a server layer LSP

> C-D.

> 

> If the OSS sets the C-D (server) LSP to shutting down:

> - How does the C-D (server) LSP know that the A-F (Client) LSP has shut

> down;

>    - Nodes C & D on LSP A-F can only have MIPs and they cannot

>      read the lock message (as currently defined).

> - Also how can the C-D (server) LSP notify the A-F (client) LSP that it

> has shut down:

>    - Nodes C & D on LSP A-F can only have MIPs and they cannot

>      send spontaneous (locked) messages (as currently defined).

> 

> 

> Malcolm Betts

> Nortel Networks

> Phone: [phone] (ESN 393)

> email: [e-mail]

> 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]

> On Behalf Of Lam, Hing-Kam (Kam)

> Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 9:57 AM

> To: Martin Vigoureux

> Cc: [e-mail]

> Subject: Re: [Mpls-interop] MPLS-TP OAM requirements -

> Lockandnotificationoflock

> 

> Martin,

> 

> Within the context of notification across layers, the notification

> propagates from the MEP of the Locked LSP to the MEPs of the client layers.

> 

> If the "Shutting Down" state is supported, one can "Shut down" the server

> LSP. The server LSP will enter the "Shutting Down" state and waiting for

> all the existing client services to quit. At this time, the MEP of the

> server LSP will notify the client layer. Action can then be taken on the

> client services (e.g. reroute or delete the service).

> 

> If the "Shutting Down" state is not supported and there is no advance

> notification to the client layer, then the impact of "Lock" the server LSP

> on the supported client services is no difference than a server LSP

> failure. That is it will cause alarms to be raised against the client

> services.

> 

> Regards,

> Kam

> 

> > -----Original Message-----

> > From: Martin Vigoureux [mailto:[e-mail]]

> > Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 9:34 AM

> > To: Lam, Hing-Kam (Kam)

> > Cc: Adrian Farrel; [e-mail]

> > Subject: Re: [Mpls-interop] MPLS-TP OAM requirements -

> > Lockandnotificationof lock

> >

> > Kam,

> >

> > does this give the complete view?

> > in other word does the notification stop at the MEP of the Locked LSP

> > or is it propagated to MEPs of clients layers?

> >

> > -m

> >

> > Lam, Hing-Kam (Kam) a écrit :

> > > Notification across layers takes place within a node. This is the

> > > context that my email was responding to.

> > >

> > > In a separate email from Malcolm, he mentioned "just notify the far

> > > end that the lock is in place and allow the decision ..." This is

> > > not what my email was responding to.

> > >

> > > I hope I understand your first question correctly.

> > >

> > > Regards,

> > > Kam

> > >

> > >> -----Original Message-----

> > >> From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:[e-mail]]

> > >> Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 6:02 AM

> > >> To: Lam, Hing-Kam (Kam)

> > >> Cc: [e-mail]

> > >> Subject: Re: [Mpls-interop] MPLS-TP OAM requirements -

> > >> Lockandnotificationof lock

> > >>

> > >> Am I missing something?

> > >> Does notification across layers take place within a node or on the

> > > wire?

> > >> Thanks,

> > >> Adrian

> > >>

> > >> ----- Original Message -----

> > >> From: "Lam, Hing-Kam (Kam)" <[e-mail]>

> > >> To: "Malcolm Betts" <[e-mail]>; "Sprecher, Nurit (NSN -

> > > IL/Hod

> > >> HaSharon)" <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>;

> > >> <[e-mail]>; "Martin Vigoureux"

> > >> <[e-mail]>

> > >> Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 6:51 AM

> > >> Subject: Re: [Mpls-interop] MPLS-TP OAM requirements -

> > >> Lockandnotificationof lock

> > >>

> > >>

> > >> Dear all,

> > >>

> > >> See inline below. I am addressing the issue of notification across

> > >> layers, not addressing notifying the sink (egress) points.

> > >>

> > >> Regards,

> > >>

> > >> Kam

> > >>

> > >>> -----Original Message-----

> > >>> From: [e-mail]

> > >> [mailto:[e-mail]]

> > >>> On Behalf Of Malcolm Betts

> > >>> Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 8:42 AM

> > >>> To: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon); [e-mail];

> > >>> [e-mail]

> > >>> Subject: Re: [Mpls-interop] MPLS-TP OAM requirements - Lock

> > >>> andnotificationof lock

> > >>>

> > >>> All,

> > >>> I think you are making this far too complicated...  I see no need

> > >>> to propagate the locked indication across layers.

> > >>>

> > >>> [Lam, Hing-Kam (Kam)] The bottom line is to avoid unexpected

> > >>> interruption to the client services so that to reduce unnecessary

> > > alarm

> > >>> being raised from the client layer.

> > >

> > > _______________________________________________

> > > Mpls-interop mailing list

> > > [e-mail]

> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-interop

> > >

> _______________________________________________

> Mpls-interop mailing list

> [e-mail]

> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-interop