Re: [mpls] Comments to draft-vkst-mpls-tp-oam-id-mib-03

Hi Muly,

Thanks for the email.
Please see inline for my comments.

-sam
On Jun 12, 2012, at 6:36 AM, Muly Ilan wrote:

> Hi,
>  
> It seems that the case of associated bidirectional LSPs is not fully covered by the current draft.
> According to the MPLS-TP OAM framework, in this case two independent unidirectional MEs should be defined to independently monitor each direction.
>  
> 1.       It would be helpful if there was an indication in the mplsOamIdMeTable whether the ME is uni or bi directional.
%sam - Sure thing. We should be able to add a new object to indicate that, in the next version.
> 2.       For associated bidirectional LSPs there are two separate entries in the mplsTunnelTable. Thus, the mplsOamIdMeServicePointer of each of the unidirectional MEs shall point to its relevant entry i.e. to the forward or the reverse tunnel entry. This is another reason to keep the pointer in the ME table and not in the MEG table. The description of mplsOamIdMeServicePointer should be expanded.
%sam - We make/add appropriate changes to the description.
> 3.       A proactive OAM session would utilize both MEs (one ME for transmission of OAM packets and the other for reception). This can be indicated by having the same value of mplsOamIdMeProactiveOamSessIndex. Its worth noting it in the description of mplsOamIdMeProactiveOamSessIndex.
%sam - Will fix the description.
>  
> Regards,
>  
> Muly
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls