Re: [Mpls-interop] MPLS-TP OAM requirements - Lock and notification of lock

"Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)" <nurit.sprecher@nsn.com> Mon, 04 May 2009 06:09 UTC

Return-Path: <nurit.sprecher@nsn.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 59A013A6C46 for <mpls-interop@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 May 2009 23:09:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.397
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.397 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.798, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 WQOiMC1rfXZC for <mpls-interop@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 May 2009 23:09:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from demumfd002.nsn-inter.net (demumfd002.nsn-inter.net [217.115.75.234]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 831B43A6950 for <mpls-interop@ietf.org>; Sun, 3 May 2009 23:08:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from demuprx017.emea.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.129.56]) by demumfd002.nsn-inter.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n4469x7S021791 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 4 May 2009 08:09:59 +0200
Received: from demuexc025.nsn-intra.net (demuexc025.nsn-intra.net [10.159.32.12]) by demuprx017.emea.nsn-intra.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n4469wQa011879; Mon, 4 May 2009 08:09:59 +0200
Received: from DEMUEXC014.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.128.25]) by demuexc025.nsn-intra.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 4 May 2009 08:09:58 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 08:09:55 +0200
Message-ID: <077E41CFFD002C4CAB7DFA4386A53264A754DA@DEMUEXC014.nsn-intra.net>
In-Reply-To: <49FE21B7.2090605@chello.nl>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Mpls-interop] MPLS-TP OAM requirements - Lock and notification of lock
Thread-Index: AcnMQsynGIqM3jHPT/mViHwr9mwQxgAO9FEQ
References: <0BDFFF51DC89434FA33F8B37FCE363D516FDAE56@zcarhxm2.corp.nortel.com> <42D4A33F1EAE420289ED4EFCA24D19BB@your029b8cecfe><49FDE0C4.7060807@alcatel-lucent.com> <49FE21B7.2090605@chello.nl>
From: "Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)" <nurit.sprecher@nsn.com>
To: hhelvoort@chello.nl, Martin Vigoureux <martin.vigoureux@alcatel-lucent.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 May 2009 06:09:58.0878 (UTC) FILETIME=[F40677E0:01C9CC7E]
Cc: mpls-interop@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Mpls-interop] MPLS-TP OAM requirements - Lock and notification of 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: Mon, 04 May 2009 06:09:38 -0000

Huub, 
I do not understand why you say that the separation of a CP and MP
indicates that the ingress and the egress point belong to different SP
domains?  
Best regards,
Nurit

-----Original Message-----
From: mpls-interop-bounces@ietf.org
[mailto:mpls-interop-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext Huub van
Helvoort
Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 1:59 AM
To: Martin Vigoureux
Cc: mpls-interop@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Mpls-interop] MPLS-TP OAM requirements - Lock and
notification of lock

Bonsoir Martin,

You wrote:

> here are my thoughts on this:
> 
> As far as I understand, strictly speaking the Lock function
> does not make sense on a unidir LSP. Indeed locking is performed
> at the source point and so there is no need to send any message
> to perform that Lock. (the potentially needed message is to inform
> the end-point(s) of the status but that is lock notification.
> I'll come back to this).

What should happen if the CP and MP are separated, i.e the
ingress point and egress poinr belong to different SP domains?

> Therefore Lock is only needed on a bidir entity and what is exactly
> needed is the capability to request the other end point to admin lock
> its direction.

What do you mean by "its direction", the direction from "the
other end point" back to the "source point"?

> Coming back to the notification, I believe the following requirement
> is needed:
>    The MPLS-TP OAM toolset MUST provide a functionality to enable an
>    End Point of a PW, LSP or Section to inform the End Point(s) of
that
>    LSP, PW, or Section that the PW, LSP or Section has been
>    administratively shutdown at this End Point.
> But it is conditionally needed. This function is *only* needed if
> locking is achieved via Lock, otherwise if it is achieved via NMS
> commands

This requires that both end points can be reached via the MP.

> we (I hope) can safely assume that:
> for undir LSP there will be commands at both ends, one saying lock,
the 
> other saying you are notified of other end locking.
> for bidir LSP there will be commands at both ends, both saying lock
and 
> you are notified of other end locking.
> 
> The MUST is needed because the egress must be aware of the Lock
because
> we expect him to then inform client MEPs that are "downstream". (see
> question at the end of this e-mail).
> 
> The small problem I have is that this function is a notification
> one but really tightly linked to the Lock. In other words, I do
> not know where this reqs better fits (especially wrt to the
conditional
> issue): in Lock or in Lock Notification?
> Opinions are welcomed.
> 
> Therefore I propose:
> 
> 2.2.x.  Lock
> The MPLS-TP OAM toolset SHOULD provide a functionality to enable an
> End Point of a bidirectional PW, LSP or Section to request to its
> associated End Point that it administratively shuts down the direction
> of the PW, LSP or Section for which it is the head-end.
> 
> This function SHOULD be performed on-demand.
> 
> This function SHOULD be performed between the End Points of a PW, LSP
> or Section.
> 
> Note that administratively shutting down corresponds to stopping user 
> traffic being sent on the PW, LSP or Section.
> 
> 
> 2.2.y.  Lock Notification
> The MPLS-TP OAM toolset MUST provide a function to enable End Points
> of a (server) LSP or Section to notify, of its administrative locking
> status, the End Points of (client) PWs or LSPs affected by this
status.
> 
> This function SHOULD be performed on-demand.
> 
> This function SHOULD be performed between the End Points of a PW, LSP
> or Section.
> -comment:
> this needs to be rephrased as the notifying end points may not be
> the same nodes than the notified end points.
> The general case is in fact a notification between end points of 
> different e.g., LSPs while the sentence seems to say that it is
between
> the end-points of the same e.g., LSP.
> Any suggestion welcomed.

Snip -- I will answer the next in a separate email--

Regards, Huub.

-- 
================================================================
Always remember that you are unique...just like everyone else...
_______________________________________________
Mpls-interop mailing list
Mpls-interop@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-interop