IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Mpls-interop] On Req.41

David Ward <dward@cisco.com> Fri, 03 April 2009 01:19 UTC

Return-Path: <dward@cisco.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 3D9A33A68B1 for <mpls-interop@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 18:19:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.365
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.365 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.234, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 UFdK+k79XCCC for <mpls-interop@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 18:19:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48AC33A6896 for <mpls-interop@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 18:18:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.39,316,1235952000"; d="scan'208";a="149825873"
Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Apr 2009 01:19:20 +0000
Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n331JJNK027815; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 18:19:19 -0700
Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n331JGp6009673; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 01:19:16 GMT
Received: from xmb-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.52]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 2 Apr 2009 21:19:16 -0400
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([171.68.225.134]) by xmb-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 2 Apr 2009 21:19:15 -0400
Message-Id: <B048E0D5-63C2-4E4B-9E67-57D0545031FB@cisco.com>
From: David Ward <dward@cisco.com>
To: Malcolm Betts <betts01@nortel.com>
In-Reply-To: <0BDFFF51DC89434FA33F8B37FCE363D516A265C8@zcarhxm2.corp.nortel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3)
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 20:19:14 -0500
References: <C5F83D1A.149D7%benjamin.niven-jenkins@bt.com> <581F790938EF4F68A3DFB19FA5CCFACF@your029b8cecfe> <0BDFFF51DC89434FA33F8B37FCE363D516A265C8@zcarhxm2.corp.nortel.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Apr 2009 01:19:15.0802 (UTC) FILETIME=[34560BA0:01C9B3FA]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1970; t=1238721559; x=1239585559; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim1004; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=dward@cisco.com; z=From:=20David=20Ward=20<dward@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[Mpls-interop]=20On=20Req.41 |Sender:=20; bh=KwSPYO45LaQAhqSOWeUcFWUvxoDSVBQrw6s2oTYc+gs=; b=W2jN/C+bZef+Sy9iIzw1SkgVbDqjDSmN6KqLJAxKCQ0g/xtMhH5rjZPft7 g0uPOZi3fCjMYBpZUgxR8ULvfGfEfeQrCV6vk+FRodhCo4zlGbUk7hmwT8ro 6bcgkvk8OKmfQ2elXQByxebB9u95G7a8pp6Qmnl/eKjSCGMbMiwPQ=;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=dward@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; );
Cc: mpls-interop@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Mpls-interop] On Req.41
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: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 01:19:32 -0000

Malcolm -

OAM as we are inventing is a "control plane" that is in-band with the  
"data plane." We know that OAM triggers data plane, control plane and  
management plane actions. Given this, we should discuss and reference  
OAM functions, states, triggers and actions as appropriate. The  
dependencies are what is critical We may be in a tomato/tomatoe  
situation.

-DWard


On Apr 1, 2009, at 7:41 AM, Malcolm Betts wrote:

> The comment from Adrian raises an interesting point:
>
> Should data plane OAM triggers (e.g. loss of CC, server AIS etc) be
> described as a part of the data plane, as implied by Adrian's comment
> and draft sprecher:
>
> Or in the OAM draft, as implied by Ben's comment.
>
> I have a slight preference to describing them as part of the data  
> plane
> OAM, key point is that we need to be consistent.
>
>
> Malcolm Betts
> Nortel Networks
> Phone: +1 613 763 7860 (ESN 393)
> email: betts01@nortel.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpls-interop-bounces@ietf.org
> [mailto:mpls-interop-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
> Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 6:27 PM
> To: Ben Niven-Jenkins; Annamaria Fulignoli; Malis, Andrew G. (Andy)
> Cc: mpls-interop@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Mpls-interop] On Req.41
>
> Hi,
>
>> I would argue protection triggers are likely to be either control
>> plane driven (we have that covered), management plane driven (Eric's
>> draft) or OAM driven (Martin's) draft.
>
> Or, locally, data plane driven.
>
> Please see draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-survive-fwk-01.txt for more  
> details on
> protection triggers.
>
> Adrian
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mpls-interop mailing list
> Mpls-interop@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-interop
> _______________________________________________
> Mpls-interop mailing list
> Mpls-interop@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-interop

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email