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

[<[e-mail]>]

Hi Ben....I think we need to start being a little more precise....have snipped the thread to the point I want to make:

 
Ben Niven-Jenkins wrote 03 December 2010 01:03

<snipped>
> 
> The CSF draft covers two cases:
> - PWs
> - LSPs (and by implication the three clients supported by 
> LSPs, namely IP, PWs and other LSPs)

NH=> PWs are now (sadly) a layer network in their own right.  They should not exist in MPLS-TP.  However, they do.  But they have OAM and so don't need CSF because of this.
> 
> PWs have a mechanism already and the CSF draft acknowledges that.
> 
> LSPs have BFD and other tools to detect failures.
> 
> IP has a bunch of mechanisms e.g. IGP hellos if you're 
> building an IP network or various keepalive mechanisms if 
> you're layering IP tunnels on something else.

NH=> Let me ignore the fact that we should not have sublayering nor PWs in MPLS-TP (though these are conscious mistakes we have decided to make).  So which clients above the PW layer need CSF?  Can we see a list of these please?

Note - Despite the fact the CSF draft is architecturally wrong and technically flawed as I have pointed out before, IMO any attempt at CSF that does not consider all layers to the true TOS layer network and the impact on external message/file/stream applications (eg IP is a true TPS layer network) is a waste of time.  It's a similar argument as to why E-NNIs in non-TOS layer network are also a waste of time.  Sure we can do these things (we can do all manner of unnecessary things) but I would rather not waste effort/money on unnecessary things.

regards, Neil
<snipped to end>
>