Re: [mpls-tp] [mpls] WG LC draft-lm-pwe3-mpls-tp-gal-in-pw-00.txt

Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com> Fri, 11 March 2011 19:20 UTC

Return-Path: <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>
X-Original-To: mpls-tp@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls-tp@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 275B23A6C7A; Fri, 11 Mar 2011 11:20:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.563
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.563 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.035, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=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 9N6N97j9WH5O; Fri, 11 Mar 2011 11:20:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ilptbmg01.ecitele.com (ilptbmg01-out.ecitele.com [147.234.242.234]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D7473A698D; Fri, 11 Mar 2011 11:20:34 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: 93eaf2e7-b7c1dae000001449-47-4d7a7648cc71
Received: from ilptexch01.ecitele.com ( [172.31.244.40]) by ilptbmg01.ecitele.com (Symantec Brightmail Gateway) with SMTP id 96.2E.05193.8467A7D4; Fri, 11 Mar 2011 21:21:44 +0200 (IST)
Received: from ILPTMAIL02.ecitele.com ([147.234.244.213]) by ilptexch01.ecitele.com ([172.31.244.40]) with mapi; Fri, 11 Mar 2011 21:21:52 +0200
From: Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>
To: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>, Luca Martini <lmartini@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 21:21:49 +0200
Thread-Topic: [mpls] WG LC draft-lm-pwe3-mpls-tp-gal-in-pw-00.txt
Thread-Index: AcvgIJCjINO9d7bvQ8uZXoqo8NcncgAAI1aw
Message-ID: <A3C5DF08D38B6049839A6F553B331C76D6FBBDD332@ILPTMAIL02.ecitele.com>
References: <AANLkTikcnCa5DQZyGgD_QawiQ_57KKA4BXQm7iRRayKA@mail.gmail.com> <4D5E9442.3030101@cisco.com> <AANLkTikmTjBZgtxNQRrAbBVQEmEKFAvyvAapk7Qbdf9O@mail.gmail.com> <4D7A2439.6010508@cisco.com> <AANLkTim+hqNFHi9xwuzG5_2qoKztEn9SJA9TDh-S-XUo@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTim+hqNFHi9xwuzG5_2qoKztEn9SJA9TDh-S-XUo@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_A3C5DF08D38B6049839A6F553B331C76D6FBBDD332ILPTMAIL02eci_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Cc: "lihan@chinamobile.com" <lihan@chinamobile.com>, "mpls-tp@ietf.org" <mpls-tp@ietf.org>, pwe3 <pwe3@ietf.org>, HUANG Feng F <Feng.f.Huang@alcatel-sbell.com.cn>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls-tp] [mpls] WG LC draft-lm-pwe3-mpls-tp-gal-in-pw-00.txt
X-BeenThere: mpls-tp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: MPLS-TP Mailing list <mpls-tp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp>, <mailto:mpls-tp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls-tp>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls-tp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-tp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp>, <mailto:mpls-tp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 19:20:46 -0000

Greg, Luca,
As I've already stated in my comment on draft-nadeau-pwe3-vccv-2, IMHO it makes draft-lm-pwe3-mpls-tp-gal-in-pw completely useless.

My 2c,
     Sasha

From: mpls-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Greg Mirsky
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2011 9:14 PM
To: Luca Martini
Cc: lihan@chinamobile.com; mpls@ietf.org; pwe3; HUANG Feng F; mpls-tp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mpls] WG LC draft-lm-pwe3-mpls-tp-gal-in-pw-00.txt

Dear Luca,
thank you for bringing draft-nadeau-pwe3-vccv-2-01 to my attention. I'll send my comments to it in a separate e-mail.
I'll have to miss another opportunity to discuss your proposal in a meeting. Please add my comments below to my earlier expressed WG LC comments:

 *   the draft-lm-pwe3-mpls-tp-gal-in-pw-00 depends on any solution that addresses applicability of GAL in PW VCCV, e.g. solution proposed in draft-nadeau-pwe3-vccv-2-01;
 *   the draft-lm-pwe3-mpls-tp-gal-in-pw-00 needs to mention such dependency and refer to any existing proposal;
 *   I believe that the draft-lm-pwe3-mpls-tp-gal-in-pw-00 can be advanced in lock with document that addresses use of GAL in PW VCCV.
Regards,
Greg
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 5:31 AM, Luca Martini <lmartini@cisco.com<mailto:lmartini@cisco.com>> wrote:
Greg ,
Some

On 02/18/11 11:15, Greg Mirsky wrote:
> Dear Luca,
> I see at least two issues:
>
>     * use of GAL for PW, in my view, is another VCCV CC type that has
>       to be negotiated as described in RFC 5085.
>
These are valid points, but this document in question does not define,
not discussed VCCV.
We have since posted a draft that proposes a new VCCV mode , and we
welcome comments regarding that document.
(draft-nadeau-pwe3-vccv-2-01.txt)

>     * use of GAL creates ambiguous situation when PW CW is used. The
>       benefit from extending GAL in PW, as I see, is for PWs that are
>       not required to use PW CW. That might be a good enough reason to
>       update RFC 5586 as proposed in the document but we must address
>       use cases of GAL in PWs that require presence PW CW. If we
>       prohibit or even discourage use of GAL for these PWs that have
>       PW VCCV as native Associated Channel, then architecture of ACh
>       for MPLS-TP PW not simplified as result of adopting the proposal.
>
> Regard
Greg,
The GAL is basically a notifier that the packet following the end of the
MPLS label stack, is explicitly defined as a G-ACH format.
Normally the packet would be decoded as an IP packet , unless the last
label on the stack indicated otherwise.

The GAL can certainly be applied  to a PW OAM packet on a PW that uses
the CW, and this document does not define that , nor restricts it.

The scope of this document is limited to removing an unnecessary
restriction in rfc5586, hence  this comment not applicable to this document.

Thanks.
Luca

> s,
> Greg
>
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 7:46 AM, Luca Martini <lmartini@cisco.com<mailto:lmartini@cisco.com>
> <mailto:lmartini@cisco.com<mailto:lmartini@cisco.com>>> wrote:
>
>     Greg,
>
>     Sorry, but I do not remember the point you mention.
>     Can you explain again here ?
>     Thanks.
>     Luca
>
>
>     On 02/17/11 23:47, Greg Mirsky wrote:
>     > Dear Authors and All,
>     > prior to the meeting in Bejing and acceptance of this proposal as WG
>     > document Luca and I agreed that use of GAL with PW VCCV presents a
>     > problem.
>     > I was not attending the IETF-79, nor I found discussion of this
>     issue
>     > in the minutes. I think that this issue should be specified,
>     > explained. In my view, this document updates not only RFC 5586
>     > but RFC 5085 too.
>     >
>     > Regards,
>     > Greg
>     >
>     > Comment to draft-lm-pwe3-mpls-tp-gal-in-pw-00.txt
>     >
>     > On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 10:14 AM, Luca Martini
>     <lmartini@cisco.com<mailto:lmartini@cisco.com> <mailto:lmartini@cisco.com<mailto:lmartini@cisco.com>>
>     > <mailto:lmartini@cisco.com<mailto:lmartini@cisco.com> <mailto:lmartini@cisco.com<mailto:lmartini@cisco.com>>>> wrote:
>     >
>     >     Greg,
>     >
>     >     You are correct , the proposed update does not propose any
>     changes
>     >     to VCCV.
>     >     However the problem with vccv is not as simple as to ask for
>     a new
>     >     code point from IANA.
>     >     Given the good amount of discussion on this point, we should
>     >     probably have a discussion in Beijing.
>     >
>     >     Luca
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >     On 10/29/2010 05:07 PM, Greg Mirsky wrote:
>     >>     Dear Authors,
>     >>     I think that proposed update of the Section 4.2. RFC 5586
>     makes it possible
>     >>     to use GAL on MPLS-TP PW that uses Control Word. I consider
>     it to be
>     >>     conflict between PW VCCV CC types because use of GAL is not
>     negotiated
>     >>     through PW VCCV negotiation. To avoid such situation I propose:
>     >>
>     >>        - in Section 5 request IANA to assign new CC Type "MPLS
>     Generic
>     >>        Associated Channel Label"
>     >>        - assign precedence to new CC Type that affects Section
>     7 RFC 5085
>     >>
>     >>     Regards,
>     >>     Greg
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>     _______________________________________________
>     >>     mpls mailing list
>     >>     mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org> <mailto:mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>> <mailto:mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
>     <mailto:mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>>>
>     >>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > mpls mailing list
>     > mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org> <mailto:mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>>
>     > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>
>