Re: [mpls] Questions on BFD MPLS MIB
venkatesan mahalingam <venkatflex@gmail.com> Tue, 05 June 2012 03:28 UTC
Return-Path: <venkatflex@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8F6C11E80B4; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 20:28:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WGLtuImQ4bNL; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 20:28:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vb0-f44.google.com (mail-vb0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E82ED21F86A0; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 20:28:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vbbez10 with SMTP id ez10so3268977vbb.31 for <multiple recipients>; Mon, 04 Jun 2012 20:28:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=JnjCCBWbkJa6wZVQcqw7oErAeDGaclj8/MM7MqeK4s4=; b=Z4gje8XpJSm3AW8FNkRSwBHGnPx5+Mx8zNIcucG3MKpX5mzajKa6w2gq2e5+XSCt4d mKS58I1yAiwmBouazLPknyrpq7qJm8GbixQsDNdBE0hvjserLsu9Jb3qk7uUU0PccIOn PLL/sFc83fLWRIryqJGGrFAOFGZr3mNhJ/HlHhUJXuK8LVDEsuyMo3MtDkkquzbJGgIY TJDWBznxPl7csx0mf6GJR90agxn9V54wyO5XRwVTOrpIyVG3XlyauhSAwKzv67K0qd87 vr7xxNbDBOFeKb/gFBzvRAV+3gv3e85n/Qa2IUHYYjEgM3Q76BukQ94q+iSdSaLDmqpG rC8g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.94.36 with SMTP id cz4mr13005260vdb.10.1338866907306; Mon, 04 Jun 2012 20:28:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.34.205 with HTTP; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 20:28:27 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAPOnYTb3EeYF6QHmy-O+-niRhu4K9sd_Wc=4LwJrXQR8nT53fg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPOnYTY3V-8JqUE3UYoY+T_nhChnidiFdpu3N5rWj14JcSKc0g@mail.gmail.com> <CAPOnYTb3EeYF6QHmy-O+-niRhu4K9sd_Wc=4LwJrXQR8nT53fg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 20:28:27 -0700
Message-ID: <CALXanX+=xwRjCahC99daofLbtPsU9V=ddhNj_+c2psaDbibq_A@mail.gmail.com>
From: venkatesan mahalingam <venkatflex@gmail.com>
To: Saravanan Narasimhan <saravanannarasimhan@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: mpls@ietf.org, rtg-bfd@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mpls] Questions on BFD MPLS MIB
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 03:28:29 -0000
Hi, Please find below the comments inline with the tag [VM]. Thanks, Venkat. On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 12:12 AM, Saravanan Narasimhan <saravanannarasimhan@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Authors, > > I have a question regarding the Section 5.2.1 of the draft > draft-vkst-bfd-mpls-mib-02. > > It states that > > " bfdMplsSessMapType = teIpv4(3), > > -- OID of the first accessible object (mplsTunnelName) of > -- the mplsTunnelEntry identifying the MPLS TE tunnel (being -- monitored > using BFD) in the MPLS tunnel table. > -- A value of zeroDotzero indicates that no association -- has been made as > yet between the BFD session and the path > -- being monitored. > -- In the above OID example: > -- 100 -> Tunnel Index > -- 1 -> Tunnel instance > -- 3221225985 -> Ingress LSR Id 192.0.2.1 > -- 3221225987 -> Egress LSR Id 192.0.2.3 > > bfdMplsSessMapPointer = mplsTunnelName.100.1.3221225985.3221225987, > bfdSessRowStatus = createAndGo > } > > Similarly BFD session would be configured on the tail-end of the tunnel. > > " > > Here, at the tail-end of the tunnel, "Instance" is never really known. > Tunnel can be setup with any tunnel instance (LSP ID) when it is signaled > through RSVP-TE / CR-LDP. It need not be "1" as mentioned in the above > example. > > So, We should be setting the map pointer as > > "bfdMplsSessMapPointer = mplsTunnelName.100.0.3221225985.3221225987". Am I > right? [VM] If I'm not wrong, tunnel instance 0 is reserved for configured tunnel, we should be able to get the LSP-id through RSVP-TE or out-of-band signalling (LSP Ping). > Or should we take the approach as defined in PW-MPLS-STD-MIB (RFC 5602) > where OutboundTunnel is mapped to the PW through individual objects > (pwMplsOutboundTunnelIndex, pwMplsOutboundTunnelInstance, > pwMplsOutboundTunnelLclLSR and pwMplsOutboundTunnelPeerLSR with > pwMplsOutboundTunnelInstance as a READ-ONLY parameter) instead of a > RowPointer approach done here. Please clarify. [VM] RowPointer approach should be fine. > Also, Can you please clarify how this MIB can be used to monitor a tunnel > setup through 1:1 protection support (RSVP-TE signaling as in RFC 4872) (2 > LSP's -> Working and Protection)? > > Should we create 2 independent BFD sessions to monitor working and > protection LSP or a single BFD session to monitor both? [VM] Yes, two independent BFD sessions are required to monitor both working and protection paths. > If we need to create 2 BFD sessions, how to map tunnel pointer to BFD > session? [VM] Either you can configure tunnel pointers at the head and tail nodes manually or use out-of-band signalling using on-demand CV. > > Please clarify. > > Thank You, > N.Saravanan > > _______________________________________________ > mpls mailing list > mpls@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls >
- [mpls] Questions on BFD MPLS MIB Saravanan Narasimhan
- Re: [mpls] Questions on BFD MPLS MIB venkatesan mahalingam