[mpls-tp] Query on draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf-00

Lavanya Srivatsa <lavanya.srivatsa@aricent.com> Mon, 07 March 2011 07:43 UTC

Return-Path: <lavanya.srivatsa@aricent.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 4E5303A692A for <mpls-tp@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Mar 2011 23:43:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 SxMBYvQ+10Ma for <mpls-tp@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Mar 2011 23:43:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jaguar.aricent.com (jaguar.aricent.com [121.241.96.11]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7FCF3A6925 for <mpls-tp@ietf.org>; Sun, 6 Mar 2011 23:43:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jaguar.aricent.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by postfix.imss71 (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44A4E36B7C for <mpls-tp@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Mar 2011 13:11:02 +0530 (IST)
Received: from GUREXHT01.ASIAN.AD.ARICENT.COM (gurexht01.asian.ad.aricent.com [10.203.171.136]) by jaguar.aricent.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EE6536B7A for <mpls-tp@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Mar 2011 13:11:02 +0530 (IST)
Received: from GUREXMB02.ASIAN.AD.ARICENT.COM ([10.203.171.130]) by GUREXHT01.ASIAN.AD.ARICENT.COM ([10.203.171.137]) with mapi; Mon, 7 Mar 2011 13:14:15 +0530
From: Lavanya Srivatsa <lavanya.srivatsa@aricent.com>
To: MPLS TP <mpls-tp@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2011 13:14:06 +0530
Thread-Topic: Query on draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf-00
Thread-Index: Acvcm2mH7S4VpopFR26Pjg7XFtIumA==
Message-ID: <E13C8C03049AFA4E9CEE5A21D3E7F85DB588756A@GUREXMB02.ASIAN.AD.ARICENT.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_E13C8C03049AFA4E9CEE5A21D3E7F85DB588756AGUREXMB02ASIANA_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [mpls-tp] Query on draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf-00
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: Mon, 07 Mar 2011 07:43:09 -0000

To the authors,

Section 3.1 states that all "the applicability scenarios description and the related configurations and mechanisms" of the [RSVP-TE CONF] draft are applicable while using LSP Ping for OAM configurations.
While the OAM Configuration TLV and its sub-TLVs (PM, LM etc) can be reused in LSP Ping messages, what is not clear is how these TLVs are to be in carried in an LSP Ping message.
For RSVP-TE, these are carried within the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object. For LSP Ping, is the OAM Config TLV and its sub-TLVs intended to be carried similar to other LSP Ping related TLVs (such as target FEC, DSmap etc)?

On the same lines, in order to change parameters of an already established and configured OAM function during the lifetime of the LSP, the [OAM-CONF-FWK] draft talks about extending the ADMIN_STATUS object for incorporating bits for "OAM Flows Enabled" and "OAM Alarms Enabled" that are to be used during the process of the establishment of MPLS-TP OAM entities.
In the case of LSP Ping, is the Global Flags field described in Section 3 of [RFC4379] to be extended to incorporate the above?

Please let me know if I am missing something here.
Clarifying the above 2 aspects in this [LSP PING OAM CONF] draft would be highly desirable.

- Lavanya