IETF Logo Mail Archive

[mpls-tp] Looking for alternative term for per-interface MIP

Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Fri, 10 December 2010 01:19 UTC

Return-Path: <gregimirsky@gmail.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 0B0F428C0DB; Thu, 9 Dec 2010 17:19:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.05
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.05 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.548, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 clrP-sUO0ysM; Thu, 9 Dec 2010 17:19:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vw0-f44.google.com (mail-vw0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 351233A6BF6; Thu, 9 Dec 2010 17:19:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by vws7 with SMTP id 7so2076572vws.31 for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 09 Dec 2010 17:21:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:date:message-id :subject:from:to:content-type; bh=tPOoNf3YSIx1UgJAfqpPtgdwr8D3RKLK1LtMBo+ilRc=; b=soDn+dsRAYPCmdyT7382GPfoMwpaS6+635GxAozBaPdLSj3Ze6+dlO8g1XOsnJsMK8 ClMKu7EcriJ/+oenO9XnPISYsLoDg2QVGYbiqUzmYTe/W9LNbye2uCFqUM7gc0rmFWAl GsqfrytNNh5SQrDpc3yhMQziKX++EJwMjinXQ=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=Xv3Y8tlBpdI+DhJu0iUz6PxthR6+yoUB3bH49QL0rr9adeJcH7vaEChqHF8dkTcZ0I JZiJ1UBqUsZ5nT6mtPzkKvbb8B3HfagkAxLMSUP0OTnRG6v0s3rehrXLVI6sNecXd3Vw ygOUHJF45tb83zCbq+/qkuzq36+JgBcn2Qm9Q=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.202.193 with SMTP id ff1mr11414vcb.81.1291944066409; Thu, 09 Dec 2010 17:21:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.220.187.6 with HTTP; Thu, 9 Dec 2010 17:21:06 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 17:21:06 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTikBNsFZ=g-rQdPu9avPAoUdsNaiD==dxoRC6fq7@mail.gmail.com>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
To: David Allan I <david.i.allan@ericsson.com>, Italo.Busi@alcatel-lucent.it, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, mpls-tp@ietf.org, mpls@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=90e6ba53ab3e25e4c60497042bd5
Subject: [mpls-tp] Looking for alternative term for per-interface MIP
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: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 01:19:38 -0000

Dear All,
throughout MPLS-TP OAM documents per-interface MIP term is used. All
documents refer to draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-framework-09.txt Section 3.4. I
think that "per-interface MIP" is not the best terminology.  "Interface", at
least intuitively, understood as physical entity. I think that such
interpretation is ambiguous particularly on a Merge Point in case of FRR or
segment protection. One way to remove this ambiguity might be to explicitly
note that "interface" and "virtual interface" are being used
interchangeably. Another is to replace "per-interface" with another term. I
was thinking that "per-section" might be good candidate as Section has been
properly defined in RFC 5654.


Regards,
Greg

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email