Re: [mpls] Comments on draft-bryant-mpls-oam-udp-return

["MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[e-mail]>]

Eric, Stewart,

It seems to me (after scanning the draft) that the MPLS-PLDM could be 
treated as the out-of-scope measurement traffic/protocol in the LMAP
Framework Figure 1 below (Where IPPM is currently used as the 
out-of-scope example):

                                                              ^
                                                              |
                                 Active    +-------------+    IPPM
            +---------------+  Measurement | Measurement |    Scope
            | Measurement   |<------------>|     Peer    |    |
            |   Agent       |   Traffic    +-------------+    v
   +------->|               |                                 ^
   |        +---------------+                                 |
   |              ^      |                                    |
   |  Instruction |      |  Report                            |
   |              |      +-----------------+                  |
   |              |                        |                  |
   |              |                        v                  LMAP
   |         +------------+             +------------+        Scope
   |         | Controller |             |  Collector |        |
   |         +------------+             +------------+        v
   |                ^   ^                       |             ^
   |                |   |                       |             |
   |                |   +----------+            |             |
   |                |              |            v             |
+------------+   +----------+    +--------+    +----------+   | 
|Bootstrapper|   |Subscriber|--->|  data  |<---|repository|   Out
+------------+   |parameter |    |analysis|    +----------+   of
                 |database  |    | tools  |                   Scope
                 +----------+    +--------+                   |  
                                                              |

The MPLS-PLDM Querier could be co-located with a Measurement Agent,
and assuming the Querier performs all the coordination, including
arranging to return the response message to a port co-located
with the same Measurement Agent (or configuration takes the
role of signaling), then the MPLS-PLDM responder 
could be treated as a Measurement Peer.  The LMAP Control and
Report protocols provision and collect results from the Querier,
taking the role of a "management system" mentioned in the draft.

hope this helps,
Al




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Gray [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 11:47 AM
> To: [e-mail]; Gregory Mirsky; draft-bryant-mpls-oam-udp-
> [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: [mpls] Comments on draft-bryant-mpls-oam-udp-return
> 
> Stewart,
> 
> 	I understand your point.  But the question is not whether or not it
> will work,
> but rather whether or not there is consensus to do it this way.
> 
> 	On any given day, it is trivial to come up with any number of
> approaches
> for doing something (whatever that something is) that will _work_ - which
> is not the
> same as saying that we should all pour energy into any of those ideas.
> 
> 	I also understand the pressures associated with customer
> requirements, but
> don't see why the customer(s) behind your requirements should have the
> last word
> on which approach should be used - based solely on those requirements.
> 
> 	That approach leads to a point-solution that has a definite non-zero
> cost.  As
> a general approach, the continuous generation of point solutions has its
> own scaling
> issues.
> 
> 	It is my hope that someone will have the energy to put together a
> draft to
> propose an alternative based on LMAP.  I personally do not have either the
> energy
> or the bandwidth.  In fact, I don't have the bandwidth or the energy to
> continue in
> this discussion.   I sincerely hope and intend this will be my last post
> on this topic.
> 
> 	If there is insufficient interest in developing the scaled-down
> version of an
> LMAP-based proposal - either within the MPLS working group, or among the
> LMAP
> framework authors - before the Toronto meeting, or there is not a number
> of like
> objections raised on the MPLS mailing list, then it would seem that the WG
> default
> consensus  is to proceed with your draft.
> 
> 	Believe it or not, I personally can live with that.
> 
> --
> Eric
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 11:18 AM
> To: Eric Gray; Gregory Mirsky; draft-bryant-mpls-oam-udp-
> [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [mpls] Comments on draft-bryant-mpls-oam-udp-return
> Importance: High
> 
> Eric
> 
> I think the onus is on you as the objector to provide me with a pointer to
> a specific protocol alternative not a framework, or to show why this
> simple addition of four bytes will not work in the manner that I describe.
> 
> Stewart