Re: [mpls-tp] Demultiplexing to BFD sessions

Hi Loa,

Actually I do not intent to exclude the ATM based LSRs in MPLS-TP networks, 
I am just wondering that if the Egress LSR allocates explicit null labels to 
its upstream neighbours, then how to determine to which LSP the received 
MPLS-TP OAM message LSP belongs only based on the explicit null label?  It 
seems that it has the same issue as PHP. Is my understanding correct?

Best regards,
Mach

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Loa Andersson" <loa.andersson@ericsson.com>
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 6:20 PM
To: "Mach Chen" <mach@huawei.com>om>; "Mukund Mani" <mukund.mani@gmail.com>om>; 
<mpls-tp@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [mpls-tp] Demultiplexing to BFD sessions

> Mike,
>
> looking at the not very likely cases. It is possible to
> run LSPs or mpls controlled ATM switches, we need the explicit
> null labels to do this, would we like to build anything into
> the standards that exclude ATM based LSRs from mpls-tp networks?
>
> /Loa
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: mpls-tp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-tp-bounces@ietf.org] On
>> Behalf Of Mach Chen
>> Sent: den 11 juni 2010 12:05
>> To: Mukund Mani; mpls-tp@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [mpls-tp] Demultiplexing to BFD sessions
>>
>> Hi Mukund,
>>
>> I also have the same question about this.
>>
>> As to the BFD discriminator, IMHO, we should keep using it as it be,
>> because
>> it may not be enough to demultiplex the BFD session only based on the
>> label,
>> this is especially true when there are more than two BFD sessions over
>> the
>> LSP.
>>
>> BTW, it seems that explicit null label distribution is not excluded
>> (and
>> IMHO it should be excluded as PHP) in MPLS-TP (do I miss something?) ,
>> and
>> it is one of the issues that LSP-Ping for BFD session bootstrap is
>> trying to
>> reslove.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Mach
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> From: "Mukund Mani" <mukund.mani@gmail.com>
>> Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 2:24 PM
>> To: <mpls-tp@ietf.org>
>> Subject: [mpls-tp] Demultiplexing to BFD sessions
>>
>> > Hi TP-Group
>> > **
>> > *draft-ietf-mpls-tp-lsp-ping-bfd-procedures-00 *states in Section 3
>> >
>> > "When using BFD over MPLS-TP LSPs, the BFD discriminator MUST either
>> be
>> > signaled via LSP-Ping or be statically configured."
>> >
>> > *draft-ietf-mpls-tp-bfd-cc-cv-00 *states in Section 3.5.6
>> >
>> > "MPLS labels at peer MEPs are used to provide context for the
>> received BFD
>> > packets."
>> >
>> > As I understand from the statement in the CC/CV draft, since
>> discriminator
>> > values are not required for demultiplexing to the BFD session
>> anymore, we
>> > will not need LSP Ping to bootstrap BFD session for TP LSP.
>> >
>> > But *draft-ietf-mpls-tp-lsp-ping-bfd-procedures-00 *specifies that
>> LSP
>> > Ping
>> > can also be used to signal BFD discriminator.
>> >
>> > So is LSP Ping still really needed in the context of BFD over MPLS-
>> TP?
>> >
>> > Also as a part of MPLS-TP OAM could somebody explain why such a
>> deviation
>> > is
>> > taken from the BFD-BASE mode of demultiplexing which even BFD-MPLS
>> uses
>> > (discriminator values instead of MPLS labels), but MPLS-TP goes in
>> for
>> > demultiplexing using labels....
>> >
>> > Could somebody please clarify this..?
>> >
>> >
>> > With Regards
>> > Mukund
>> > <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-bfd-cc-cv-00>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > mpls-tp mailing list
>> > mpls-tp@ietf.org
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> mpls-tp mailing list
>> mpls-tp@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp 