Re: [mpls] 2nd working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map

[<[e-mail]>]

Hi Pablo,

Thank you for your comments.

If you don't want any change for your equipments,
you can select per-node MIP option.
Otherwise, it is needed to change something.
Even if you change something in your cheap and high volume hardware,
the cost would be very low in the case of minimum change as our draft says.

Thanks,
Hideki Endo


>I'm still a little wary of the wording on pg. 9, 4th bullet.  Currently,
>the draft suggests that packet inspection needs to be minimized.  My
>concern with the original solution proposal was that it required a new
>line-rate *lookup*.  There was a secondary concern around parsing TLVs
>which this point *does* appear to address, but minimizing 'inspection' does
>not seem to preclude new lookups.  One of the nice things about MPLS OAM as
>it's defined today is that relatively easy to get off-the-shelf forwarding
>hardware to trap / redirect OAM frames to a separate OAM block that could
>perform the OAM validation and lookups.  This is because encountering a
>GACh or a TTL expiry as part of regular MPLS handling unambiguously
>terminates the frame (and note that it doesn't require an OAM-specific
>lookup in the main-line forwarding hardware).  I'd like this draft to set
>avoiding new OAM-specific lookups as a design objective, or you risk
>precluding a whole class of (cheap, high volume) hardware from being able
>to do this function.
>
>regards,
>Pablo
>
>
>On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Shahram Davari <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> My Comments are addressed and I support this draft to be published as
>> Informational  RFC.
>>
>> Thx
>> Shahram
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
>> Loa Andersson
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 3:02 AM
>> To: [e-mail]
>> Cc: <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
>> [e-mail]
>> Subject: [mpls] 2nd working group last call on
>> draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map
>>
>> Working Group,
>>
>> draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map-05.txt has been updated after a
>> previous last call, due to the nature a and extent of the updates
>> we have chosen to start a 2nd wg last call.
>>
>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map
>>
>> There's also a htmlized version available at:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map-05
>>
>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map-05
>>
>> Please send your comments, including approval of the documents and
>> the updates to the mpls working group list ([e-mail])
>>
>> This working group last call ends March 13, 2013.
>>
>> /Loa
>> for the MPLS working group co-chairs
>> --
>>
>>
>> Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
>> Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]
>> Huawei Technologies (consult)        phone: [phone]
>> _______________________________________________
>> mpls mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> mpls mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>>
>