Re: [Mpls-interop] MPLS-TP OAM requirements - Lockandnotificationof lock
"Annamaria Fulignoli" <annamaria.fulignoli@ericsson.com> Tue, 05 May 2009 12:16 UTC
Return-Path: <annamaria.fulignoli@ericsson.com>
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 198B53A672F for <mpls-interop@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 May 2009 05:16:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.024
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.024 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.225, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 T6KxKi19K+h8 for <mpls-interop@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 May 2009 05:16:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se (mailgw4.ericsson.se [193.180.251.62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 798043A7184 for <mpls-interop@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 May 2009 05:15:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb3e-b7b7aae000004a86-5c-4a002e4c8bdf
Received: from esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id CE.45.19078.C4E200A4; Tue, 5 May 2009 14:17:16 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from esealmw118.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.200.77]) by esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 5 May 2009 14:17:16 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 14:17:15 +0200
Message-ID: <93DFCD4B101EB440B5B72997456C5F9403ACC347@esealmw118.eemea.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <4A0010A2.4090801@chello.nl>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Mpls-interop] MPLS-TP OAM requirements - Lockandnotificationof lock
Thread-Index: AcnNbT6q6jMRF2ZMR8KHkrw9z6taYQADPoMQ
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> <4A0010A2.4090801@chello.nl>
From: Annamaria Fulignoli <annamaria.fulignoli@ericsson.com>
To: hhelvoort@chello.nl
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 May 2009 12:17:16.0479 (UTC) FILETIME=[6DDF44F0:01C9CD7B]
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
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
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 12:16:22 -0000
Hi Huub, about last comment yes, I agree! Another example could be if B is a MEP of a Section ME, i.e among A and B. Thank you. Cheers, Annamaria -----Original Message----- From: Huub van Helvoort [mailto:hhelvoort@chello.nl] Sent: martedì 5 maggio 2009 12.11 To: Annamaria Fulignoli Cc: mpls-interop@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Mpls-interop] MPLS-TP OAM requirements - Lockandnotificationof lock 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...
- [Mpls-interop] MPLS-TP OAM requirements - Lock an… Malcolm Betts
- Re: [Mpls-interop] MPLS-TP OAM requirements - Loc… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Mpls-interop] MPLS-TP OAM requirements - Loc… Martin Vigoureux
- Re: [Mpls-interop] MPLS-TP OAM requirements - Loc… Huub van Helvoort
- Re: [Mpls-interop] MPLS-TP OAM requirements - Loc… Huub van Helvoort
- Re: [Mpls-interop] MPLS-TP OAM requirements - Loc… Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
- Re: [Mpls-interop] MPLS-TP OAM requirements - Loc… Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
- Re: [Mpls-interop] MPLS-TP OAM requirements - Loc… Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
- Re: [Mpls-interop] MPLS-TP OAM requirements - Loc… Huub van Helvoort
- Re: [Mpls-interop] MPLS-TP OAM requirements - Loc… Huub van Helvoort
- Re: [Mpls-interop] MPLS-TP OAM requirements - Loc… Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
- Re: [Mpls-interop] MPLS-TP OAM requirements - Loc… Huub van Helvoort
- Re: [Mpls-interop] MPLS-TP OAM requirements - Loc… Martin Vigoureux
- Re: [Mpls-interop] MPLS-TP OAM requirements - Loc… Martin Vigoureux
- Re: [Mpls-interop] MPLS-TP OAM requirements - Loc… Martin Vigoureux
- Re: [Mpls-interop] MPLS-TP OAM requirements - Loc… Martin Vigoureux
- Re: [Mpls-interop] MPLS-TP OAM requirements - Loc… Malcolm Betts
- Re: [Mpls-interop] MPLS-TP OAM requirements - Loc… Huub van Helvoort
- Re: [Mpls-interop] MPLS-TP OAM requirements - Loc… Huub van Helvoort
- Re: [Mpls-interop] MPLS-TP OAM requirements - Loc… Malcolm Betts
- Re: [Mpls-interop] MPLS-TP OAM requirements - Loc… Martin Vigoureux
- Re: [Mpls-interop] MPLS-TP OAM requirements - Loc… Martin Vigoureux
- Re: [Mpls-interop] MPLS-TP OAM requirements - Loc… Martin Vigoureux
- Re: [Mpls-interop] MPLS-TP OAM requirements - Loc… Huub van Helvoort
- Re: [Mpls-interop] MPLS-TP OAM requirements - Loc… Malcolm Betts
- Re: [Mpls-interop] MPLS-TP OAM requirements - Loc… Martin Vigoureux
- Re: [Mpls-interop] MPLS-TP OAM requirements - Loc… Huub van Helvoort
- Re: [Mpls-interop] MPLS-TP OAM requirements - Loc… Huub van Helvoort
- Re: [Mpls-interop] MPLS-TP OAM requirements - Loc… Lam, Hing-Kam (Kam)
- Re: [Mpls-interop] MPLS-TP OAM requirements - Loc… Annamaria Fulignoli
- Re: [Mpls-interop] MPLS-TP OAM requirements - Loc… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Mpls-interop] MPLS-TP OAM requirements - Loc… Huub van Helvoort
- Re: [Mpls-interop] MPLS-TP OAM requirements - Loc… Annamaria Fulignoli
- Re: [Mpls-interop] MPLS-TP OAM requirements - Loc… Lam, Hing-Kam (Kam)
- Re: [Mpls-interop] MPLS-TP OAM requirements - Loc… Martin Vigoureux
- Re: [Mpls-interop] MPLS-TP OAM requirements - Loc… Malcolm Betts
- Re: [Mpls-interop] MPLS-TP OAM requirements - Loc… Malcolm Betts
- Re: [Mpls-interop] MPLS-TP OAM requirements - Loc… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Mpls-interop] MPLS-TP OAM requirements - Loc… Malcolm Betts
- Re: [Mpls-interop] MPLS-TP OAM requirements - Loc… Lam, Hing-Kam (Kam)
- Re: [Mpls-interop] MPLS-TP OAM requirements - Loc… Malcolm Betts
- Re: [Mpls-interop] MPLS-TP OAM requirements - Loc… Malcolm Betts
- Re: [Mpls-interop] MPLS-TP OAM requirements - Loc… Lam, Hing-Kam (Kam)