Re: [mpls-tp] Use of term "interface" in MPLS-TP Identifiers and OAM Framework drafts

[Alexander Vainshtein <[e-mail]>]

Italo,
Lots of thanks for a prompt response.
I agree that different MPLS-TP documents treat the term "interface" differently, and this adds to the overall havoc.

I strongly object to treating sub-layers as interfaces in MPLS-TP because IMO  this would break the MPLS data plane in an irreparable manner.

As a consequence I suggest we keep the definition used in the MPLS-TP Identifiers draft and rework the OAM framework document accordingly.

Regards,
     Sasha



From: [e-mail] [[e-mail]] On Behalf Of BUSI, ITALO (ITALO) [[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 11:00 AM
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: [mpls-tp] Use of term "interface" in MPLS-TP Identifiers and OAM Framework drafts


I see a lot of comments related to the term “interface” used within the OAM Framework draft in the context of the per-interface MIP definition and NO comments on the same term used within the Identifiers draft.

I would like to clarify that the same term “interface” actually represents the same concept in both the MPLS-TP Identifiers and MPLS-TP OAM Framework drafts.

I would therefore propose that the following definition is added to both drafts:

 “
Interface: An interface is the attachment point to a server (sub-)layer e.g., MPLS-TP section or MPLS-TP tunnel.
“

This definition is taken from the text in section 4 of the Identifiers draft with the following proposed changes:

1) c/Access Point (AP)/attachment point/ as proposed by ITU-T

2) c/layer/(sub-)layer/ to align the definition with the outcome of past discussion: label stacking is a form of sub-layering with the MPLS and MPLS-TP layer network.

I have a strong opinion that both the MPLS-TP Identifiers and the MPLS-TP OAM Framework must use the same term (and definition) to identify the same entity.

I have a preference to keep the term “interface” on both drafts to speed up the work.

Italo