IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mpls-tp] comment to draft-nitinb-mpls-tp-on-demand-cv

Huub van Helvoort <hhelvoort@chello.nl> Mon, 19 July 2010 13:03 UTC

Return-Path: <hhelvoort@chello.nl>
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 2AA833A6850; Mon, 19 Jul 2010 06:03:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.700, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 dNemquA4XxQ5; Mon, 19 Jul 2010 06:03:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fep12.mx.upcmail.net (fep12.mx.upcmail.net [62.179.121.32]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25F183A67AF; Mon, 19 Jul 2010 06:03:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from edge01.upcmail.net ([192.168.13.236]) by viefep12-int.chello.at (InterMail vM.8.01.02.02 201-2260-120-106-20100312) with ESMTP id <20100719130321.RRXN20209.viefep12-int.chello.at@edge01.upcmail.net>; Mon, 19 Jul 2010 15:03:21 +0200
Received: from McAsterix.local ([77.250.51.60]) by edge01.upcmail.net with edge id jp3K1e03N1Hw6VZ01p3LkC; Mon, 19 Jul 2010 15:03:21 +0200
X-SourceIP: 77.250.51.60
Message-ID: <4C444D17.40904@chello.nl>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 15:03:19 +0200
From: Huub van Helvoort <hhelvoort@chello.nl>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Nitin Bahadur <nitinb@juniper.net>
References: <C85B7799.12744%nitinb@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <C85B7799.12744%nitinb@juniper.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Cloudmark-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=K3uBg944YaUT+Qsu6bWO0a0V3uPy4DQNslbdoMCD4tw= c=1 sm=0 a=BtkJuX86MzcA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=FPig4UQT7IWdttPdGMEA:9 a=Iio9IfRCGOi_DhPfs_rdmlWKYz4A:4 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=HpAAvcLHHh0Zw7uRqdWCyQ==:117
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "mpls-tp@ietf.org" <mpls-tp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls-tp] comment to draft-nitinb-mpls-tp-on-demand-cv
X-BeenThere: mpls-tp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: hhelvoort@chello.nl
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, 19 Jul 2010 13:03:14 -0000

Hello Nitin,

You replied:

>> It does not document how this tool can be used in transport
>> environment where tools are enabled/disabled static (compared
>> to the dynamic set-up of LSP-ping.
>
> LSP-Ping is indeed dynamic in the request/response sense. However, the LSP
> by itself can be setup statically or using RSVP-TE. If it is setup
> statically, then section 2.4 applies. Can you clarify your comment.

Section 2.4 describes how to identify a static LSP.

My question concerns the activation/enabling/instantiation of
the tool.
In transport networks when tools are enabled the appropriate
parameters are set (e.g. periodicity, MEL, thresholds, etc.)
and it is expected that no negotiation between the end-points
takes place after this provisioning. If one of the end-points
gets an unexpected result this is reported to the NMS.
This enabling is considered to be static.
I cannot find any description of this expected behaviour in
transport netwroks in the draft.

Regards, Huub.

-- 
================================================================
Always remember that you are unique...just like everyone else...

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email