Re: [mpls] working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map

["Shahram Davari" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Adrian,

Identifying whether to terminate an OAM packet and process it in In-MIP vs. Out-MIP requires line rate lookup, otherwise the OAM packet will not take the same path as data packets.  Therefore any MIP identifier that is proposed in this draft requires one extra lookup and therefore adds significantly to cost. Perhaps a similar method to Ethernet MDL/MEL (Maintenance Domain Level) may be used that requires only 3 bits and achieves the same result.

Regards,
Shahram

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 8:45 AM
To: 't.petch'; 'Loa Andersson'; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [mpls] working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map

Yeah, it's a boring draft. Did you expect me to co-author anything else?

The point was that when I started the I-D lots of people were saying "it's
complex" and "it can't be done" and "it won't be backward compatible".

So the I-D says "here it is"

A (sorry not to offer you excitement)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: t.petch [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: 19 November 2012 12:38
> To: Loa Andersson; [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; MPLS-TP ad hoc team;
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [mpls] working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map
> 
> After getting to section 6 and its features (requirements!), I find
> myself underwhelmed; is that it?  Well, I suppose so, it is
> Informational and not Standards Track.
> 
> Meanwhile, I suggest some editorial issues.
> 
> Title
> Handling MPLS-TP OAM Packets Targeted at Internal MIPs
> [Handling MPLS-TP OAM Packets Targeted at Interface MIPs
> seems a more informative statement unless and until you get to the
> definition of Internal in s3; and s6, which is the crux of the document
> says
> The preferred solution to per-interface MIP message handling is
>    presented in this section]
> 
> s1
> two (or more) MIPs per node on both sides of the forwarding engine.
> [two on both sides sounds like four in total to me; suggest 'one on each
> side of the forwarding engine']
> 
> s4
>    o  CV between a MEP and a MIP
> [expand CV on first use]
> 
> s5
> In-band OAM messages are sent using the G-ACh [RFC5586] for MPLS-TP
>    LSPs and MPLS-TP PWs, respectively.
> ['respectively' suggests to me that there should be two precedents, not
> just RFC5586; the second paragraph specifies RFC5586 for LSPs,
> RFC6423/RFC4385 for PWs, in which case, strike this sentence as
> redundant]
> 
> s6
> The appendix of this document contains a
>    few solutions that the authors have discarded which have been left in
>    the document for informational purposes.
> [not any more they haven't!]
> 
> The node itself is addresses
> [The node itself is addressed]
> 
> The identification information indside
> [The identification information inside ]
> 
> MIP identifiers are not know
> [MIP identifiers are not known]
> 
> reserved MIP address
> [reserved MIP addressses or a reserved MIP address]
> 
> Tom Petch
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Loa Andersson" <[e-mail]>
> To: <[e-mail]>
> Cc: <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>; "MPLS-TP ad
> hoc team" <[e-mail]>;
> <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 3:16 PM
> 
> > Working Group,
> >
> > This is to start a 2 week working group last call on
> > draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map.
> >
> > Please send your comments to the mpls working group mailing
> > list ([e-mail]).
> >
> > Please send both technical comments, and if you are happy with the
> > document as is also indications of support.
> >
> > This working group last call will end on November 28.
> >
> > /Loa
> > for the wg co-chairs
> >


_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls