IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Mpls-interop] Who will be in Geneva?

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Tue, 02 December 2008 09:47 UTC

Return-Path: <mpls-interop-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: mpls-interop-archive@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-mpls-interop-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA7923A6BE9; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 01:47:32 -0800 (PST)
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 549EE3A6BE9 for <mpls-interop@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 01:47:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001]
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 6Ub1xdkLVF0T for <mpls-interop@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 01:47:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from protext01.itu.ch (protext01.itu.ch [156.106.192.41]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 466EA3A6BF4 for <mpls-interop@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 01:47:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from protext01.itu.ch ([156.106.192.41]) by protext01.itu.ch with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Tue, 2 Dec 2008 10:47:26 +0100
Received: From mail6.itu.ch ([156.106.192.22]) by protext01.itu.ch (WebShield SMTP v4.5 MR3) id 1228211245625; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 10:47:25 +0100
Received: from your029b8cecfe ([156.106.216.176]) by mail6.itu.ch (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id mB29lNde369041; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 10:47:24 +0100 (MET)
Message-ID: <544A1F950C094CA9A3784BB056848E6F@your029b8cecfe>
From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: "Sprecher, Nurit \(NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon\)" <nurit.sprecher@nsn.com>, <hhelvoort@chello.nl>
References: <A79C9B7D57B940FF802C8395F15E232E@your029b8cecfe> <C55A12D2.EB1D%benjamin.niven-jenkins@bt.com> <43284B5A95E36B4AB4A91EBA4E0FC31EFE09F2@DEMUEXC030.nsn-intra.net> <4934FCC2.7030305@chello.nl> <5D6BC3F282284834A176BD399603BD23@your029b8cecfe> <43284B5A95E36B4AB4A91EBA4E0FC31EFE0B70@DEMUEXC030.nsn-intra.net>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 09:47:19 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (mail6.itu.ch [156.106.192.22]); Tue, 02 Dec 2008 10:47:25 +0100 (MET)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Dec 2008 09:47:26.0921 (UTC) FILETIME=[FC101390:01C95462]
Cc: "Weingarten, Yaacov \(NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon\)" <yaacov.weingarten@nsn.com>, mpls-interop@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Mpls-interop] Who will be in Geneva?
X-BeenThere: mpls-interop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
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: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/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>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: mpls-interop-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: mpls-interop-bounces@ietf.org

Right.
Picture looks good.
As we all seem to be agreeing, let's find a new name for TC to avoid 
confusing it with (or being limited by) the previous definition within the 
ITU. (We certainly don't want to try to change the definition of TC because 
we will really have fun if we do that :-)

The discussion we need to have face-to-face next week when Loa is in 
Switzerland will relate to how TTL methods of OAM are 
improved/unchanged/made worse by the use of hierarchical LSPs in the event 
of protection activities.

A
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)" <nurit.sprecher@nsn.com>
To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>uk>; <hhelvoort@chello.nl>
Cc: "ext Ben Niven-Jenkins" <benjamin.niven-jenkins@bt.com>om>; 
<mpls-interop@ietf.org>rg>; "Weingarten, Yaacov (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)" 
<yaacov.weingarten@nsn.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 9:36 AM
Subject: RE: [Mpls-interop] Who will be in Geneva?


Hi,
I agree that we need to find a better name......
What about the figure in the second slide of the attached?
If multiple LSPs transmit via the same physical path in the first domain
and have the same constraints, why cannot we aggregate them and run OAM
per the aggregated in the first domain?
Best regards,
Nurit

-----Original Message-----
From: ext Adrian Farrel [mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk]
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 11:20
To: hhelvoort@chello.nl; Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
Cc: ext Ben Niven-Jenkins; mpls-interop@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Mpls-interop] Who will be in Geneva?

Hi Huub.

> The TC aggregate is not a TC anymore, it should IMHO be referred
> to as a tunnel.

Yes!

Which is not to say that it is not a useful construct for reducing OAM
overhead.

I think (OK, I know) that I suggested we avoid using the TC language as
I
thought we would find it unhelpful. Perhaps when we meet to go through
this,
we can draw pictures and work out the language later?

A




_______________________________________________
Mpls-interop mailing list
Mpls-interop@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-interop

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email