IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mpls-tp] PSC MEP action on Non TTL 1 value- Receive

Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com> Thu, 17 March 2011 05:41 UTC

Return-Path: <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.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 08A883A6A4D for <mpls-tp@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Mar 2011 22:41:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.572
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.572 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.026, 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 qkRUwXei-iv9 for <mpls-tp@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Mar 2011 22:41:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ilptbmg02.ecitele.com (ilptbmg02-out.ecitele.com [147.234.242.235]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 888743A6A56 for <mpls-tp@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Mar 2011 22:41:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: 93eaf2e8-b7bc9ae000002803-1c-4d819f0930be
Received: from ilptexch01.ecitele.com ( [172.31.244.40]) by ilptbmg02.ecitele.com (Symantec Brightmail Gateway) with SMTP id EC.84.10243.90F918D4; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 07:41:29 +0200 (IST)
Received: from ILPTMAIL02.ecitele.com ([147.234.244.213]) by ilptexch01.ecitele.com ([172.31.244.40]) with mapi; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 07:43:10 +0200
From: Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>
To: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>, Saravanan P <PSaravanan@ixiacom.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 07:43:10 +0200
Thread-Topic: [mpls-tp] PSC MEP action on Non TTL 1 value- Receive
Thread-Index: AcvkPp9B6WygCuc6QYq6y+VXgv+gVwAJmGR3
Message-ID: <A3C5DF08D38B6049839A6F553B331C76D6FB8BEABE@ILPTMAIL02.ecitele.com>
References: <CFAB86E936BD6440B59B8FA25A792C060F1BB36E5A@IXCAEXCH07.ixiacom.com>, <AANLkTimMuN1tQhPTh86CcYLBr2fsgn_32rypshYL_aAT@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimMuN1tQhPTh86CcYLBr2fsgn_32rypshYL_aAT@mail.gmail.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_A3C5DF08D38B6049839A6F553B331C76D6FB8BEABEILPTMAIL02eci_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Cc: "mpls-tp@ietf.org" <mpls-tp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls-tp] PSC MEP action on Non TTL 1 value- Receive
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: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 05:41:49 -0000

Greg, Saravanan and all,
Yet another option could be introducing UDP/IP-based encapsulations for the TSC OAM (in addition to already existing ones).
These encapsulations would work just fine with VCCV Type 2 (where applicable) and Type 3.
The IP address assigned to the originating NE on the SCN could be used as the Source IP address, and an address from 127/8 - as the Dest IP address. And a well-known UDP port could be allocated to identify PSC OAM packets...

My 2c,
     Sasha



________________________________
From: mpls-tp-bounces@ietf.org [mpls-tp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Greg Mirsky [gregimirsky@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2011 2:59 AM
To: Saravanan P
Cc: mpls-tp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mpls-tp] PSC MEP action on Non TTL 1 value- Receive

Dear Saravanan,
VCCV Control Channels 2 and 3 cannot be used to carry PSC OAM as it uses ACh/G-ACh. (I think that only BFD, LSP and ICMP ping might use CC 2 and 3). As I understand the draft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-protection-04.txt, the PW must use PW CW in order to properly process PSC signalling. Of course, that is the case for MPLS-TP PW and based on current wording of RFC 5586. If GAL is used in PWs, in non-TP and/or MPLS TP PSN, use of PW CW might not be required.

Regards,
Greg

On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 3:05 AM, Saravanan P <PSaravanan@ixiacom.com<mailto:PSaravanan@ixiacom.com>> wrote:
Hi,

In spec  Linear Protection draft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-protection-04.txt, what will be the default behavior if designated MEP receives the PSC OAM packet with  Pseudowire lable has non TTL 1 value ?

How does MEP in PE knows that should pass the packet to control plane or forward the packet since PW label is non TTL 1 value.

PE should take decision by seeing Tunnel and PW  label or TTL also need to be looked ?
Regards,
Saravanan.
_______________________________________________
mpls-tp mailing list
mpls-tp@ietf.org<mailto:mpls-tp@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email