Re: [mpls] Some comments on draft-yasukawa-mpls-p2mp-oam-reqs-00.txt
dimitri papadimitriou <dpapadimitriou@psg.com> Wed, 24 August 2005 06:50 UTC
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1E7p5T-0001kh-3R; Wed, 24 Aug 2005 02:50:15 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1E7p5O-0001kL-UT for mpls@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Aug 2005 02:50:13 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA02837 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Aug 2005 02:50:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] ident=mailnull) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1E7p5f-0004Qd-5N for mpls@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Aug 2005 02:50:28 -0400
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.50 (FreeBSD)) id 1E7p5M-000DKt-07; Wed, 24 Aug 2005 06:50:08 +0000
Message-ID: <430C1885.50807@psg.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 08:49:41 +0200
From: dimitri papadimitriou <dpapadimitriou@psg.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050511
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Some comments on draft-yasukawa-mpls-p2mp-oam-reqs-00.txt
References: <43070E48.5010902@psg.com> <006c01c5a5c2$89489140$20849ed9@Puppy>
In-Reply-To: <006c01c5a5c2$89489140$20849ed9@Puppy>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: f49c97ce49302a02285a2d36a99eef8c
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be, "Thomas D. Nadeau" <tnadeau@cisco.com>, mpls@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: mpls@lists.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dpapadimitriou@psg.com, dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.lists.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/mpls>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@lists.ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: mpls-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: mpls-bounces@lists.ietf.org
hi adrian, Adrian Farrel wrote: > Hi Dimitri, > > Good of you to review... > > >>in section 4.2 "These functions should allow an operator to stipulate >>the maximum amount of time to wait until responses are heard from all >>points along the path, as well a cut-offs for the number of paths >>tested." > >>-> not sure to understand what "all points" means in this context, also >>if you don't receive an answer what are you going to do (is not btw a >>situation which is susceptible to occur ?) > > Rereading this text I don't like it. > > In answer to your question, it is exactly the case you raise that we are > trying to cover. That is, it must be possible for the operator (or > automated process) to stipulate a timeout after which the failure to see a > response shall be flagged as an error. ok - much clearer > I don't like "as well a cut-offs for the number of paths tested." I think > this should say "branches" not "paths". shouldn't you also include a cut-off in terms of number of egresses then >>in section 4.3 " Note that path characterization should lead to the >>operator being able to deduce the full tree for a P2MP LSP. To achieve >>this, it is important that the branching points on that tree are clearly >>identified." >> >>-> does this sentence means that a mechanism should be made available to >>poll for specific branching point liveliness ? > > > No. > It means that knowing the set of LSRs in a tree is not sufficient. ok - i understand the meaning behind the sentence - i would suggest to refine the notion of "path characterization" in this sentence (see section 4.3 of the P2P document) but more importantly to add "sequence of branching points" or equivalent > In order to construct the tree, it is important to know the order of LSPs > traversed and it must be possible to deduce the branch points. > Our point is that a diagnostic tool should collect information that is > easy to process rather than provide information that must be > post-processed with some complexity. imho, this is a specific requirement that should normally be pointed as part of the text > Finally, we should note that in some cases it may be possible for a branch > point to have two downstream branches (different labels) that run through > the same downstream LSR (downstream LSR is not branch capable in the data > plane) and that in this case, the branch point is not possible to deduce > from the sequence of LSRs, but must be clearly flagged. indeed, i would also suggest having an extended version of this for deducing more generic cross-over branching points > I think we should capture some of these ideas in the I-D. ok - >>in section 4.6 "As described in [MPLS-OAM], network elements MUST >>provide alarm suppression and aggregation to prevent the generation of >>superfluous alarms within or across network layers." >> >>-> would it be possible to be a bit more specific in the P2MP context >>what does aggregation of alarms means ? (and which alarms ?) to which >>"network layers" is this sentence referring to ? in general, i find this >>section difficult to parse > > I don't think we should clarify [MPLS-OAM] within this document, so many > of your questions need to be redirected to the authors of that I-D. i understand your redirect and will do because the statement in the referenced doc is not indicated as being aggregation *from layers* > Yes, we should be careful with the term "alarm aggregation" because, while > [MPLS-OAM] means aggregation from layers, we can also have aggregation > from branches as set out in the paragraph after the one you quoted. ok - > Please note that the whole I-D applies only to MPLS networks. noted >>in section 4.8 "As described in [MPLS-OAM], these procedures >>will detect a broad range of defects, and SHOULD be operable where >>Since MPLS P2MP LSPs span multiple routing areas, or multiple Service >>Provider domains." >> >>-> would it be possible to clarify the beginning of the sentence refers >>to failure detection, the last part about multi-area/multi-AS ? > > Hmmm. The text here seems to have been passed through our patent > Manglomatic (TM) text converter. It should read... > Recovery from a fault by a network element can be facilitated by > MPLS OAM procedures. As described in [MPLS-OAM], these procedures > will detect a broad range of defects, and SHOULD be operable where > MPLS P2MP LSPs span multiple routing areas, or multiple Service > Provider domains. > > However, I don't suppose this answers your point. > In fact, section 4.8 of [MPLS-OAM] talks about a broad range of defects > and the application to multiple routing areas and multiple SP domains, so > the text is intended to read as re-written above. ok - but how do you link this with the path characterization where there is a need to "being able to deduce the full tree for a P2MP LSP" are you sure across AS, or providers the full tree topology will be made possible ? >>in section 4.11 "Fundamental to understanding traffic flows within a >>network that supports P2MP LSPs will be the knowledge of where the >>branch points exist within the network." >> >>-> do you assume that the tree decomposition is unique ? it seems to me >>you need to also have the branch point relationship - clarifying what >>the term "where" means would help here > > OK. We can re-work this a bit. ok - if you need some text/help let me know > Thanks, > Adrian > > > . > _______________________________________________ mpls mailing list mpls@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
- [mpls] Some comments on draft-yasukawa-mpls-p2mp-… dimitri papadimitriou
- Re: [mpls] Some comments on draft-yasukawa-mpls-p… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [mpls] Some comments on draft-yasukawa-mpls-p… dimitri papadimitriou