Re: [mpls-tp] PSC MEP action on Non TTL 1 value- Receive
Saravanan P <PSaravanan@ixiacom.com> Thu, 17 March 2011 07:13 UTC
Return-Path: <PSaravanan@ixiacom.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 997873A67F7 for <mpls-tp@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 00:13:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.691
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.691 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_ILLEGAL_IP=1.908]
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 a0UkWTifgZH7 for <mpls-tp@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 00:13:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ixqw-mail-out.ixiacom.com (ixqw-mail-out.ixiacom.com [66.77.12.12]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92BC03A67AA for <mpls-tp@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 00:13:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ixcaexch07.ixiacom.com ([fe80:0000:0000:0000:e021:fcf5:238.143.231.20]) by ixqw-hc1.ixiacom.com ([10.210.5.15]) with mapi; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 00:14:48 -0700
From: Saravanan P <PSaravanan@ixiacom.com>
To: 'Alexander Vainshtein' <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 00:14:47 -0700
Thread-Topic: [mpls-tp] PSC MEP action on Non TTL 1 value- Receive
Thread-Index: AcvkPp9B6WygCuc6QYq6y+VXgv+gVwAJmGR3AAIrFWA=
Message-ID: <CFAB86E936BD6440B59B8FA25A792C060F1BB36E63@IXCAEXCH07.ixiacom.com>
References: <CFAB86E936BD6440B59B8FA25A792C060F1BB36E5A@IXCAEXCH07.ixiacom.com>, <AANLkTimMuN1tQhPTh86CcYLBr2fsgn_32rypshYL_aAT@mail.gmail.com> <A3C5DF08D38B6049839A6F553B331C76D6FB8BEABE@ILPTMAIL02.ecitele.com>
In-Reply-To: <A3C5DF08D38B6049839A6F553B331C76D6FB8BEABE@ILPTMAIL02.ecitele.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_CFAB86E936BD6440B59B8FA25A792C060F1BB36E63IXCAEXCH07ixi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
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 07:13:25 -0000
Hi All , Thanks for your replies and information. I have another clarification regarding "interoperability States " within LSP and PW. Assume Liner Protection is running on both LSP and PW and this PW is part of LSP tunnel. I hope both LSP and PW has own instances of state machines and if any Force switch or any command happen on LSP that leads all the PWs will send Force Switch or corresponding command. In this case LSP SM is overriding all states in individual state machines of PWs on same LSP . But I believe not all LSP's commands will have high priority and 3.1.2. Remote Requests section only talk about remote end commands of same level not from LSP. Does this going to be a implementation specific or are we going to address those situation also in this RFC. Regards, saravanan From: Alexander Vainshtein [mailto:Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com] Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2011 11:13 AM To: Greg Mirsky; Saravanan P Cc: mpls-tp@ietf.org Subject: RE: [mpls-tp] PSC MEP action on Non TTL 1 value- Receive 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
- [mpls-tp] PSC MEP action on Non TTL 1 value- Rece… Saravanan P
- Re: [mpls-tp] PSC MEP action on Non TTL 1 value- … Apratim Mukherjee
- Re: [mpls-tp] PSC MEP action on Non TTL 1 value- … Saravanan P
- Re: [mpls-tp] PSC MEP action on Non TTL 1 value- … Apratim Mukherjee
- Re: [mpls-tp] PSC MEP action on Non TTL 1 value- … Greg Mirsky
- Re: [mpls-tp] PSC MEP action on Non TTL 1 value- … Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [mpls-tp] PSC MEP action on Non TTL 1 value- … Saravanan P
- Re: [mpls-tp] PSC MEP action on Non TTL 1 value- … Daniel Cohn