IETF Logo Mail Archive

[mpls-tp] 答复: Looking for alternative term for per-interface MIP

wei.hongbo@zte.com.cn Fri, 10 December 2010 01:28 UTC

Return-Path: <wei.hongbo@zte.com.cn>
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 00E553A6BFA; Thu, 9 Dec 2010 17:28:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -92.79
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-92.79 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_DOUBLE_IP_LOOSE=0.76, SARE_SUB_ENC_GB2312=1.345, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 AxvoMuJDVIsX; Thu, 9 Dec 2010 17:28:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx5.zte.com.cn (mx6.zte.com.cn [63.218.89.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 722433A6BFC; Thu, 9 Dec 2010 17:28:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.34.0.130] by mx5.zte.com.cn with surfront esmtp id 35101911657480; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 09:28:38 +0800 (CST)
Received: from [10.32.0.74] by [192.168.168.15] with StormMail ESMTP id 55813.6789467651; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 09:30:15 +0800 (CST)
Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse3.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id oBA1UAOS082332; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 09:30:10 +0800 (CST) (envelope-from wei.hongbo@zte.com.cn)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikBNsFZ=g-rQdPu9avPAoUdsNaiD==dxoRC6fq7@mail.gmail.com>
To: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.4 March 27, 2005
Message-ID: <OF81B1602D.25F41FCC-ON482577F5.00077E2E-482577F5.00085029@zte.com.cn>
From: wei.hongbo@zte.com.cn
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 09:27:31 +0800
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.1FP4|July 25, 2010) at 2010-12-10 09:30:04, Serialize complete at 2010-12-10 09:30:04
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 00085025482577F5_="
X-MAIL: mse3.zte.com.cn oBA1UAOS082332
Cc: mpls@ietf.org, mpls-tp@ietf.org, Italo.Busi@alcatel-lucent.it, mpls-tp-bounces@ietf.org
Subject: [mpls-tp] =?gb2312?b?tPC4tDogIExvb2tpbmcgZm9yIGFsdGVybmF0aXZlIHRl?= =?gb2312?b?cm0gZm9yIHBlci1pbnRlcmZhY2UgTUlQ?=
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, 10 Dec 2010 01:28:53 -0000

Hi All,

The definition of "Section" in existing MPLS switches is refer to VLAN 
interface or physical interface? I post e-mail about this topic few days 
before, NO response.

I think these two topic is the same thing...

Best regards,
steven





Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> 
发件人:  mpls-tp-bounces@ietf.org
2010-12-10 09:21

收件人
David Allan I <david.i.allan@ericsson.com>om>, Italo.Busi@alcatel-lucent.it, 
Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>uk>, mpls-tp@ietf.org, mpls@ietf.org
抄送

主题
[mpls-tp] Looking for alternative term for per-interface MIP






Dear All,
throughout MPLS-TP OAM documents per-interface MIP term is used. All 
documents refer to draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-framework-09.txt Section 3.4. I 
think that "per-interface MIP" is not the best terminology.  "Interface", 
at least intuitively, understood as physical entity. I think that such 
interpretation is ambiguous particularly on a Merge Point in case of FRR 
or segment protection. One way to remove this ambiguity might be to 
explicitly note that "interface" and "virtual interface" are being used 
interchangeably. Another is to replace "per-interface" with another term. 
I was thinking that "per-section" might be good candidate as Section has 
been properly defined in RFC 5654.


Regards,
Greg
_______________________________________________
mpls-tp mailing list
mpls-tp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp




--------------------------------------------------------
ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail is solely property of the sender's organization. This mail communication is confidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy and are not permitted to disclose the contents of this communication to others.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender.
This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam system.

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email