Re: [mpls] 答复: [CCAMP] Question regarding RFC 7260

Naveen T <naveen.thanikachalam@yahoo.in> Fri, 03 March 2017 04:12 UTC

Return-Path: <naveen.thanikachalam@yahoo.in>
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 96EFA1296DC for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 20:12:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.718
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.718 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=yahoo.in
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CX8q2BQXZKTe for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 20:12:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nm40-vm8.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com (nm40-vm8.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com [98.138.229.184]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BAA011296DF for <mpls@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 20:12:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.in; s=s2048; t=1488514323; bh=jC8uR9gPOz5/jGjThQ4qMR6YwG4q9XsL4TgTXbah+Tk=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Subject; b=bDLqUVE79bFuz4oClOt/ctJ/9imYI/eLx0qanqMnEeH4aW7438tqQ1D95g1IYsHwos+v4iS0NGdmMBf/U+Xy3WAt9tqnmknm8UwfW1/WgRNbAE1u9eAGziNr1ULjaLnGBFjy5XnndZo4fkTSg2w1ZR3t1lgJ5ZdeFVZwbEW066xoK+R+tY0qcMeH9IF98FRF5GP5dR7hqoErnlBf5ohXQBgLtVtPyA1rJZ0sJfBrG+m9taEI5ogqNjoTTFvJpccKu8w1uy5iWSGDSQSZGhar72YLv+pylfao8tisH1jSQDBvkCt+6bYvDU6j588NMGWefcstoItNK8eFrwTOOilfbA==
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by nm40.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03 Mar 2017 04:12:03 -0000
Received: from [98.138.100.111] by nm40.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03 Mar 2017 04:09:08 -0000
Received: from [106.10.166.119] by tm100.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03 Mar 2017 04:09:08 -0000
Received: from [106.10.151.15] by tm8.bullet.mail.sg3.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03 Mar 2017 04:09:08 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1020.mail.sg3.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03 Mar 2017 04:09:08 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-4
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 256249.99440.bm@omp1020.mail.sg3.yahoo.com
X-YMail-OSG: rohad8MVM1kPE6Vj_rAqd0GaP9O4iVn4D5O28DchQ2Vfel8TB0Svz_XA3NPevmw rm7Dyxk4VdqI7Eu5BSrVf4lvBWVT69z_S99fWqADIZIVklwybb6YIvoIwRKvOJdoXWnbxERKTCZg 9XyFtGVnlzz3WgLnm53drdLerbShZ40CJPOCw4o34hpJW2QglUxL.tQqdWrqKw4K18kPqXLjmtMb keMKOlLQodS3qh7O1GHO_9qJt8NQkL_ptd9xOb7VWUtnKh2nejgJgvPlSMh8uw0dbaKc3LaAkOP9 T4TQb_zeUs.T80grHAfHssdzG_4dSTxdv92o9DjIHVTOBZPhVcZ1TwIUDHTxsc_ie1kl6rymaNKf iSseC_.pF2WyVdlaazfQxm7CEFdpnLZJ2YdenlVGE3V2fSZQqZM1ROx_ikV5BAsFbZFi2v0u.59q tnbgLOfQLWhgCVr2q61Q4AC0RZdjYPiL2gjL9WCdrnOnRIF5d.uf7KhUGAV2mAbX7J3zM30Fe1L1 Ef.LXrZaLzjWlyyK7l6WlMT2B8ZgwkWT_oaqVEFcyUUTev1uw0T8.BleeYVIuJsMNuRaCeFFKEr3 r3Gr0MM1UvYeGhsCbJQ--
Received: from jws600008.mail.sg3.yahoo.com by sendmailws101b.mail.sg3.yahoo.com; Fri, 03 Mar 2017 04:09:07 +0000; 1488514147.889
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2017 04:09:07 +0000 (UTC)
From: Naveen T <naveen.thanikachalam@yahoo.in>
To: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, 'Fatai Zhang' <zhangfatai@huawei.com>, "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>, 'Mpls' <mpls@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <540463309.1044103.1488514147727@mail.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <067501d28dc1$25600520$70200f60$@olddog.co.uk>
References: <1379399279.2996090.1487771407858.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1379399279.2996090.1487771407858@mail.yahoo.com> <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF8AAB3C378@SZXEMA504-MBS.china.huawei.com> <067501d28dc1$25600520$70200f60$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_1044102_893054666.1488514147721"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/In4D_rnkGq8F0OBCIoGpd05OhAo>
Subject: Re: [mpls] =?utf-8?b?562U5aSNOiBbQ0NBTVBdIFF1ZXN0aW9uIHJlZ2FyZGluZyBS?= =?utf-8?q?FC_7260?=
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Naveen T <naveen.thanikachalam@yahoo.in>
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 03 Mar 2017 04:12:06 -0000

Thanks Adrian and Fatai.From what you say, it looks like I need to have an implementation for RFC 6373before I go onto signal the OAM entities for MPLS-TP paths. Thanks and Regards,Naveen T

 

    On Thursday, 23 February 2017 4:10 PM, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:
 

 #yiv2575976584 #yiv2575976584 -- _filtered #yiv2575976584 {font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} _filtered #yiv2575976584 {font-family:SimSun;panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;} _filtered #yiv2575976584 {font-family:SimSun;panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;} _filtered #yiv2575976584 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv2575976584 {font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} _filtered #yiv2575976584 {panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;} _filtered #yiv2575976584 {panose-1:2 11 6 0 7 2 5 8 2 4;} _filtered #yiv2575976584 {panose-1:2 11 6 0 7 2 5 8 2 4;}#yiv2575976584 #yiv2575976584 p.yiv2575976584MsoNormal, #yiv2575976584 li.yiv2575976584MsoNormal, #yiv2575976584 div.yiv2575976584MsoNormal {margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:SimSun;}#yiv2575976584 a:link, #yiv2575976584 span.yiv2575976584MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv2575976584 a:visited, #yiv2575976584 span.yiv2575976584MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv2575976584 span.yiv2575976584EmailStyle17 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv2575976584 span.yiv2575976584EmailStyle18 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv2575976584 span.yiv2575976584SpellE {}#yiv2575976584 .yiv2575976584MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv2575976584 {margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;}#yiv2575976584 div.yiv2575976584WordSection1 {}#yiv2575976584 _filtered #yiv2575976584 {} _filtered #yiv2575976584 {} _filtered #yiv2575976584 {} _filtered #yiv2575976584 {} _filtered #yiv2575976584 {} _filtered #yiv2575976584 {} _filtered #yiv2575976584 {} _filtered #yiv2575976584 {} _filtered #yiv2575976584 {} _filtered #yiv2575976584 {}#yiv2575976584 ol {margin-bottom:0cm;}#yiv2575976584 ul {margin-bottom:0cm;}#yiv2575976584 Fatai is right, I think.  If you want to operate "static" MPLS LSPs without using a control plane, then it would (IMO) be peculiar to suddenly want to use a control plane to configure and manage OAM on that LSP.  Why would you not use the same static provisioning tools?  Of course, there is also RFC 7212 available to you.  Adrian    From: mpls [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fatai Zhang
Sent: 23 February 2017 03:30
To: Naveen T; ccamp@ietf.org; Mpls
Subject: [mpls] 答复: [CCAMP] Question regarding RFC 7260  Hi Naveen,  Per RFC 7487,  I think there should be GMPLS control plane for OAM configuration purpose.           Thanks  Fatai  发件人: CCAMP [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Naveen T
发送时间: 2017年2月22日 21:50
收件人: ccamp@ietf.org; Mpls
主题: [CCAMP] Question regarding RFC 7260  Dear Authors, et al.,  RFC 7260 describes the procedures for OAM configuration and control via RSVP-TE. RFC 7467 further extends this to provide procedures to configure pro-active OAMs like BFD, FMS etc.   I have a query regarding the usage of RSVP-TE to carry the OAM configurations from the MPLS-TP tunnel ingress to the tunnel egress.Considering that the MPLS-TP bi-directional LSP has been established statically and the requirement is to only signal the OAM entities, I have the following assumptions:1.  An IGP path must be established between the MPLS-TP tunnel's ingress and egress LERs.2.  The MPLS-TP node_id of and LER/LSR, defined here, will also be configured as that LER's/LSR's loopback interface's address.3.  The IGP will ensure that each LER/LSR learns about all the LSRs/LERs along the MPLS-TP transport path.4.  RSVP-TE will use this IGP path to send/receive the PATH/RESV messages.  Are these assumptions correct?Or, should there be a GMPLS control-plane adjacency between LERs/LSRs along the MPLS-TP path with the TE links on these nodes acting as the MPLS-TP NNI interfaces?  Thanks and Regards,Naveen T      
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls