Re: [mpls] nits and question on draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-02

[Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>]

Carlos and Acee,

OK - I agree.

Authors,

can you update the document with the other changes discussed?

/Loa

/Loa

On 2017-02-12 06:25, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) wrote:
> I agree, Acee.
>
>
>
> *From: *"Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 4:59 PM
> *To: *Carlos Pignataro <[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>,
> "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>,
> "[e-mail]"
> <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *Re: [mpls] nits and question on
> draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-02
>
>
>
> Hi Carlos,
>
>
>
> *From: *"Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> *Date: *Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 2:16 PM
> *To: *Acee Lindem <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> *Cc: *Loa Andersson <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>,
> "[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>"
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>,
> "[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>"
> <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> *Subject: *Re: [mpls] nits and question on
> draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-02
>
>
>
>     Hi Acee,
>
>
>
>         On Feb 11, 2017, at 2:02 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <[e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>
>
>         Hi Carlos,
>
>
>
>         I guess I commented without knowing the context of the comment
>         ;^) See inline.
>
>
>
>         *From: *"Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <[e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>         *Date: *Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 1:29 PM
>         *To: *Acee Lindem <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>         *Cc: *Loa Andersson <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>,
>         "[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>>,
>         "[e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>"
>         <[e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>         *Subject: *Re: [mpls] nits and question on
>         draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-02
>
>
>
>             Hi, Acee,
>
>                 On Feb 11, 2017, at 12:40 PM, Acee Lindem (acee)
>                 <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>
>
>                         And a last question, should BGP-LS be in that
>                         registry?
>
>
>                     I guess no until someone needs it?
>
>
>                 BGP-LS has its own set of registries.
>
>
>
>             Thanks. Yes. The question is whether to have a BGP-LS value
>             for the MPLS LSP Ping DDMAP
>             protocol: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-02#section-6
>
>
>
>         In that case, it might make sense to add a code point for BGP-LS
>         since it is the only way to advertise the SIDs (i.e, labels when
>         MPLS SR is the data plane) for BGP EPE as described
>         in https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-sid-04.txt.
>         However, one could argue that specifying BGP would suffice since
>         unless you are going to specify other BGP Address Families
>         (AFI/SAFI tuples) as individual protocols.
>
>
>
>
>
>     That’s exactly the question — use the BGP protocol or define a new
>     BGP-LS?
>
>
>
>     To me though, until someone sits down to do the BGP EPE LSP Ping
>     analysis, we should not assume one way or another.
>
>
>
> I’d vote to just use BGP rather than setting the precedent of a separate
> protocol ID for an AFI/SAFI – are we going to have a protocol ID for BGP
> L3VPN or BGP EVPN? I guess the question is, from an OAM perspective, how
> is the DDMAP protocol going to be used?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Acee
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     Thanks,
>
>
>
>     Carlos.
>
>
>
>         Thanks,
>
>         Acee
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>             Thanks,
>
>
>
>             Carlos.
>
>
>

-- 


Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: [phone]