Re: [Mpls-interop] MPLS-TP OAM requirements - Lockandnotificationof lock

Huub van Helvoort <hhelvoort@chello.nl> Tue, 05 May 2009 10:09 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 D35873A68A8 for <mpls-interop@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 May 2009 03:09:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.33
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.33 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, 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 1tOnp-ePCJ+r for <mpls-interop@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 May 2009 03:09:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from viefep19-int.chello.at (viefep19-int.chello.at [62.179.121.39]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DC0C3A7084 for <mpls-interop@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 May 2009 03:09:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from edge03.upc.biz ([192.168.13.238]) by viefep19-int.chello.at (InterMail vM.7.09.01.00 201-2219-108-20080618) with ESMTP id <20090505101043.TNRN19075.viefep19-int.chello.at@edge03.upc.biz>; Tue, 5 May 2009 12:10:43 +0200
Received: from McAsterix.local ([24.132.228.153]) by edge03.upc.biz with edge id nmAi1b01q3KDBhC03mAj4A; Tue, 05 May 2009 12:10:43 +0200
X-SourceIP: 24.132.228.153
Message-ID: <4A0010A2.4090801@chello.nl>
Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 12:10:42 +0200
From: Huub van Helvoort <hhelvoort@chello.nl>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Macintosh/20090302)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Annamaria Fulignoli <annamaria.fulignoli@ericsson.com>
References: <0BDFFF51DC89434FA33F8B37FCE363D516FDAE56@zcarhxm2.corp.nortel.com> <42D4A33F1EAE420289ED4EFCA24D19BB@your029b8cecfe><49FDE0C4.7060807@alcatel-lucent.com><49FE241F.5080007@chello.nl><077E41CFFD002C4CAB7DFA4386A53264A754E0@DEMUEXC014.nsn-intra.net><49FE98B2.5080801@chello.nl><077E41CFFD002C4CAB7DFA4386A53264A755C1@DEMUEXC014.nsn-intra.net><0BDFFF51DC89434FA33F8B37FCE363D516FDB24D@zcarhxm2.corp.nortel.com> <A37753B7B7A3134F9366EE6B4052F43B02C8D3AA@ILEXC2U03.ndc.lucent.com> <93DFCD4B101EB440B5B72997456C5F9403ACC0BB@esealmw118.eemea.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <93DFCD4B101EB440B5B72997456C5F9403ACC0BB@esealmw118.eemea.ericsson.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: mpls-interop@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Mpls-interop] MPLS-TP OAM requirements - Lockandnotificationof lock
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: Tue, 05 May 2009 10:09:19 -0000

Ciao Annamaria,

You wrote:

> Besides, as many mails were sent on this issue,  I'd like to check with 
> all of us where we are with Lock (2.2.x) and Lock Notification(2.2.y) 
> requirements.
> 
> I know we are dealing with requirements and not with solutions, but 
> please let's consider the following example:
> 
> topology is A <---> B <---> C <---> D
> 
> LSP1 goes A-B-C-D

[hvh] so the LSP1 MEPs are located in LSR A and LSR D

> - The operator decides to set in A LSP1 administratevly down , due for 
> example to an out of service test on the path.
> 
> The Lock requirement (2.2.x ) requires that A is able to set its peer 
> MEP D in administratevly lock state. As Lam reported , we are using the 
> "LOCKED" state and "Lock" event of the X.731 Administrative state model. 
> This implies that when LSP1 in D enters in the administrative lock 
> state, all traffic on the path MUST be blocked; but MEP D must notify 
> the clients , otherwise alarms will be raised against the supported 
> client services because of the unexpected interruption; i.e. D should 
> send Lock Notification(2.2.y) to its own clients.

[hvh] agree

> - In case of bidirectional path even in MEP A the LSP1 (rx direction ) 
> enters in administrative lock state and even MEP A should notify the 
> client(s) transported by the path ( i.e. In the backward direction; req. 
> 2.2.y)

[hvh] OK

> - My understanding is that the client to which the Lock Notification is 
> sent are always MEPs as MIP are transparent to Lock and Lock Notification

[hvh] yes indeed

> - When a MEP receives a Lock Notification it can in turn notify  its 
> MPLS-TP client MEPs or map it into an equivalent signal for whatever 
> client layer is then being carried.

[hvh] correct

> - Lock Notification functionality (req 2.2.y ) applies to all scenarios 
> where server enters the "locked" state ; for instance if a port in LSR B 
> is set administratevly down (" Lock" event of the X.731 Administrative 
> state model) LSR B, as Server MEP of paths transimitted and received on 
> the port , should generate Lock Notification on all these paths, for 
> example towards D and A , MEPs of LSP1.

[hvh] note that LSR B does not have a MEP on LSP1.
The scenario you describe only works if e.g. between LSR B and
LSR C there is a tunnel (LSP2) carrying LSP1 and LSR B and C have
MEPs on LSP2. Now locking MEP on LSP2 in B will cconsequently cause
that (lock) notifications will inserted in the MEPs of LSP2 to
notify the MEPs in LSP1 (its client).

> Are we all agree on these ?

[hvh] if you agree on the last comment...

Cheers, Huub.

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