[mpls-tp] Proposed liaison to ITU-T on G.8110

Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com> Mon, 28 June 2010 17:42 UTC

Return-Path: <stbryant@cisco.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 2089A3A685F for <mpls-tp@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 10:42:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.004
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.004 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.264, BAYES_20=-0.74, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 vYqs4R0-MCHB for <mpls-tp@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 10:42:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com (sj-iport-4.cisco.com [171.68.10.86]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C02193A67B4 for <mpls-tp@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 10:42:21 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-4.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AuIFAAN8KExAaHte/2dsb2JhbACfMGsGpkmBeQsBmDOFJAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.53,498,1272844800"; d="scan'208";a="150865729"
Received: from hkg-core-1.cisco.com ([64.104.123.94]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Jun 2010 17:42:31 +0000
Received: from cisco.com (mrwint.cisco.com [64.103.71.48]) by hkg-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o5SHgTn2020918 for <mpls-tp@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 17:42:30 GMT
Received: from dhcp-gpk02-vlan300-64-103-65-9.cisco.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cisco.com (8.11.7p3+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id o5SHgR615775; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 18:42:28 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID: <4C28DF03.7020103@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 18:42:27 +0100
From: Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.10) Gecko/20100512 Lightning/1.0b1 Thunderbird/3.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "mpls-tp@ietf.org" <mpls-tp@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [mpls-tp] Proposed liaison to ITU-T on G.8110
X-BeenThere: mpls-tp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: stbryant@cisco.com
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, 28 Jun 2010 17:42:23 -0000

Several people have pointed out a discrepancy in the model for MPLS as 
documented in G.8110. Since this formal model plays a major role in the  
ITU-T MPLS-TP G.8110.1 specification, the error should to be corrected 
before publication.

I therefore propose that we send the following liaison to the ITU-T.

- Stewart

===============

To: ITU-T WP3/15
From: IETF

Dear Dr. Trowbridge,

We note that G.8110 is referenced as a normative reference from the 
draft text of the revision of G.8110.1. We also note that G.8110 is
now five years old, and has received no contributions for update over 
that period. G.8110 has been described as "not covering all of MPLS and 
certainly not what has happened in the last five years."

We believe that G.8110.1 should document MPLS-TP accurately. It is 
important, therefore, that where the model for MPLS-TP differs from that 
described in G.8110, the correct model be developed and documented in 
G.8110.1.

We would like to draw your attention in specifically to Section 6.2.2 of 
G.8110 (and, in particular, Figures 1 and 2) that says that the 
Time-To-Live (TTL) field of an MPLS header is part of the Characteristic 
Information (CI) of an MPLS_CI traffic unit. We note that according to 
G.805, the CI is supposed to be delivered end-to-end between MPLS APs 
without modification or inspection. But the function of a TTL in an 
MPLS-TP network is to be decremented at each hop along the path, and to 
be inspected at each hop and tested against zero. Thus, in the model for 
MPLS-TP, the TTL should not form part of the CI.

We request that G.8110.1 be updated to include this revision to the 
model. This might most easily be achieved by augmenting the references 
to G.8110 with updated figures based on those in G.8110 along with 
appropriate text explaining the differences in the model such that 
G.8110.1 correctly captures the model for MPLS-TP.

==========