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

[<[e-mail]>]

Agree with Lieven.

We need to avoid making predictions about the capability & complexity (& even existence) of a certain client layer technology (most of all considering terminal nodes connected by attachment circuits), but still provide effective fault notifications in packet transport applications. Herefore, IMHO, CSF is helpful and required.

Of course, we also strongly need to avoid confusing control plane and data plane tasks (e.g. relying on LDP session timeouts for fault detection).

Best regards
Manuel

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> LEVRAU, LIEVEN (LIEVEN)
> Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 2:17 PM
> To: Rajiv Asati (rajiva); Yuanlong Jiang
> Cc: [e-mail]; Sprecher,Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon); MPLS-TP ad hoc
> team; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [mpls] [PWE3] [AHMPLS-TP] Re:[mpls-tp] pollondraft-he-mpls-
> tp-csf-03.txt
> 
> provocative statement alert- We should as we are talking about MPLS-TP and
> not about IP network layer.
> 
> ./
> Lieven
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> Rajiv Asati (rajiva)
> Sent: 02 December 2010 14:14
> To: Yuanlong Jiang
> Cc: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon); MPLS-TP ad hoc team;
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [mpls] [PWE3] [AHMPLS-TP] Re: [mpls-tp] pollondraft-he-mpls-
> tp-csf-03.txt
> 
> Are we ignoring the existence of BFD altogether?
> 
> Cheers,
> Rajiv
> 
> Sent from my Phone
> 
> On Dec 1, 2010, at 8:19 PM, Yuanlong Jiang <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> > John,
> >
> > Typically, IP will only detect a failure in a time scale of minutes.
> > That is one reason why MPLS-TP OAM and Protection & Switching is needed.
> > I am not sure which mechanism in MPLS provides the CSF-like capability,
> could you give more hints?
> >
> > 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > pwe3 mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls