Re: [mpls-tp] [mpls] [PWE3] [AHMPLS-TP] Re: pollondraft-he-mpls-tp-csf-03.txt

[Yuanlong Jiang <[e-mail]>]

Eric,

Please see my comments inline.

Thanks
Yuanlong

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eric Osborne (eosborne)" <[e-mail]>
To: "Yuanlong Jiang" <[e-mail]>om>; "John E Drake" 
<[e-mail]>et>; "Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)" 
<[e-mail]>om>; "Loa Andersson" <[e-mail]>nu>; <[e-mail]>rg>; 
<[e-mail]>rg>; <[e-mail]>rg>; "MPLS-TP ad hoc team" 
<[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 9:34 AM
Subject: RE: [mpls] [PWE3] [AHMPLS-TP] Re: [mpls-tp] 
pollondraft-he-mpls-tp-csf-03.txt


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
Of
> Yuanlong Jiang
> Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 8:19 PM
> To: John E Drake; Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon); Loa
Andersson;
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; MPLS-TP ad hoc team
> Subject: Re: [mpls] [PWE3] [AHMPLS-TP] Re: [mpls-tp]
pollondraft-he-mpls-
> tp-csf-03.txt
>
> John,
>
> Typically, IP will only detect a failure in a time scale of minutes.

I must not understand the point you're making.  For one thing, BFD is
quite often configured to detect failures in significantly less than a
minute.
[JYL] The question is: Can we assume BFD is universally deployed for IP and 
PW?
If the answer is yes, then CSF is not needed, even for the PW application.

> That is one reason why MPLS-TP OAM and Protection & Switching is
needed.

What are others?
[JYL] Maybe you'd better refer to RFC 5654 for a comprehensive reqs :)

> I am not sure which mechanism in MPLS provides the CSF-like
capability,
> could you give more hints?

Even regular IGP/LDP hellos (no special tuning, no BFD) very frequently
are configured to detect failures in far less than "minutes".
[JYL] Not sure this can be used to indicate the failure of  IP service.
Even so, do we need to firstly determine what protocol is carried and then 
decide which mechanism could be used?


eric

>
> Thanks
> Yuanlong
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John E Drake" <[e-mail]>
> To: "Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)"
<[e-mail]>om>;
> "Yuanlong Jiang" <[e-mail]>om>; "Loa Andersson" <[e-mail]>nu>;
> <[e-mail]>rg>; <[e-mail]>rg>; <[e-mail]>rg>; "MPLS-TP ad hoc
> team"
> <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 9:29 PM
> Subject: RE: [PWE3] [AHMPLS-TP] Re: [mpls-tp] poll
ondraft-he-mpls-tp-csf-
> 03.txt
>
>
> > Nurit,
> >
> > As I understand the original requirement from Malcolm Betts, this
> > capability is required for those cases in which a client is unable
to
> > detect the failure of its peer.  In MPLS-TP, we have three clients,
> > PW, IP, and MPLS, and I am quite sure that IP and MPLS clients can
> > take care of themselves wrt detecting peer failure.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > John
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
> >> [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 4:47 AM
> >> To: John E Drake; Yuanlong Jiang; Loa Andersson; [e-mail];
mpls-
> >> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; MPLS-TP ad hoc team
> >> Subject: RE: [PWE3] [AHMPLS-TP] Re: [mpls-tp] poll
> >> ondraft-he-mpls-tp- csf-03.txt
> >>
> >> But what about other client services... e.g. adapted by service-LSP
> >> and not by PWE3?
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
Behalf
> >> Of ext John E Drake
> >> Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 2:35 PM
> >> To: Yuanlong Jiang; Loa Andersson; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> >> [e-mail]; MPLS-TP ad hoc team
> >> Subject: Re: [PWE3] [AHMPLS-TP] Re: [mpls-tp] poll
> >> ondraft-he-mpls-tp-csf-03.txt
> >>
> >> I am not convinced.  It seems like it belongs in the Pseudo Wire
> >> application, which already has this capability.
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPhone
> >>
> >>
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: Yuanlong Jiang [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >> > Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 1:07 AM
> >> > To: Loa Andersson; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail];
> >> > MPLS-TP ad hoc team
> >> > Subject: [AHMPLS-TP] Re: [mpls-tp] poll on draft-he-mpls-tp-csf-
> >> 03.txt
> >> >
> >> > Support.
> >> >
> >> > I believe this mechanism is needed in MPLS-TP.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks
> >> > Yuanlong
> >> >
> >> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> > From: "Loa Andersson" <[e-mail]>
> >> > To: <[e-mail]>rg>; <[e-mail]>rg>; <[e-mail]>rg>;
"MPLS-TP
> >> > ad hoc team" <[e-mail]>
> >> > Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 7:56 PM
> >> > Subject: [mpls-tp] poll on draft-he-mpls-tp-csf-03.txt
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > > all,
> >> > >
> >> > > this is to start a two week poll on making
> >> > >
> >> > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-he-mpls-tp-csf-03.txt
> >> > >
> >> > > a mpls working group document.
> >> > >
> >> > > Please send comments support/not support to the mpls-tp
maililng
> >> > list.
> >> > >
> >> > > The poll ends Thursday Dec 2, 2010.
> >> > >
> >> > > /Loa
> >> > > --
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Loa Andersson                         email:
> >> > [e-mail]
> >> > > Sr Strategy and Standards Manager            [e-mail]
> >> > > Ericsson Inc                          phone: [phone]
> >> > >                                              [phone]
> >> > > _______________________________________________
> >> > > mpls-tp mailing list
> >> > > [e-mail]
> >> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> pwe3 mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls