Re: [mpls] PSC: draft-dj-mpls-tp-exer-psc
Yuji Tochio <tochio@jp.fujitsu.com> Wed, 01 May 2013 23:32 UTC
Return-Path: <tochio@jp.fujitsu.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 068D421F9B73 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 May 2013 16:32:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.09
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.09 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 3PprcmcF8msv for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 May 2013 16:32:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp (fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp [192.51.44.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B92421F9B75 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 May 2013 16:32:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (unknown [10.0.50.71]) by fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id D33A53EE081; Thu, 2 May 2013 08:32:34 +0900 (JST)
Received: from smail (m1 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4D6245DE54; Thu, 2 May 2013 08:32:34 +0900 (JST)
Received: from s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.91]) by m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id A53CD45DE56; Thu, 2 May 2013 08:32:34 +0900 (JST)
Received: from s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 996A41DB804D; Thu, 2 May 2013 08:32:34 +0900 (JST)
Received: from flabmail.flab.fujitsu.co.jp (flabmail.flab.fujitsu.co.jp [10.25.192.37]) by s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F7961DB804B; Thu, 2 May 2013 08:32:34 +0900 (JST)
Received: from vskawa.flab.fujitsu.co.jp (vskawa.flab.fujitsu.co.jp [10.25.192.39]) by flabmail.flab.fujitsu.co.jp (8.14.4/8.14.4/110310-Fujitsu Labs. Domain Mail Master) with ESMTP id r41NWNaM013503; Thu, 2 May 2013 08:32:34 +0900 (JST)
X-AuditID: 0a19c027-b7f866d00000132d-2e-5181a612d3ed
Received: from dm.kawasaki.flab.fujitsu.co.jp (dm.kawasaki.flab.fujitsu.co.jp [10.25.192.105]) by vskawa.flab.fujitsu.co.jp (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id B9.80.04909.216A1815; Thu, 2 May 2013 08:32:34 +0900 (JST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (dhcp20.dream.flab.fujitsu.co.jp [10.25.144.235]) by dm.kawasaki.flab.fujitsu.co.jp (8.14.4/8.14.4/110311-Fujitsu Labs. Kawasaki Domain Mail Master) with ESMTP id r41NWQrM018877; Thu, 2 May 2013 08:32:34 +0900 (JST)
X-SecurityPolicyCheck: OK by SHieldMailChecker v1.8.4
Message-ID: <5181A5EB.8080807@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Thu, 02 May 2013 08:31:55 +0900
From: Yuji Tochio <tochio@jp.fujitsu.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Eric Osborne (eosborne)" <eosborne@cisco.com>
References: <20ECF67871905846A80F77F8F4A27572101502A9@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <517F078E.5030002@jp.fujitsu.com> <20ECF67871905846A80F77F8F4A275721015D2FF@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <20ECF67871905846A80F77F8F4A275721015D2FF@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-2022-JP"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrKLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsXCJXkgU1doWWOgwfu1XBZNczYzWtxaupLV gcljyu+NrB5LlvxkCmCK4rJJSc3JLEst0rdL4MpYfWwVW8E+0YrHZ8oaGH8JdDFycEgImEic e2DdxcgJZIpJXLi3nq2LkYtDSOAxo8TNZQdYIZxvjBLHntxnhqgylZi47hkjiM0roCvxatIb MJtFQFXiwNpHbCA2m4CmxLWZd8DiogLBEj87pkLVC0qcnPmEBcQWETCS6N++nwnkCGYBZYlT d2VAwsJA4WlXNzJB7F3PKDFpYg/YXk4BX4krPS/A5jAD7b154iMThC0vsf3tHOYJjIKzkKyY haRsFpKyBYzMqxgly4qzE8sT9dJyEpP00kqzMkuKS/WS8/WyCjYxQoJWfQfjs0WahxgFOBiV eHhLDBsDhVgTy4orcw8xSnAwK4nw/pwGFOJNSaysSi3Kjy8qzUktPsTIxMEp1cCoJix0cuaE fWtCVHzmn1R9c7j3TJ3smddMUioKXw9+Crh2IuBgg7F6wf8uVaPdO8XW9N/jbKwr/2KkzRWs aVW99pXVhJTT3FtCj3ee+Tg74OMlffELjIHFSZFL1W+cjZjfk/rVLKslsq0pj8Ng3RnB6JW/ cos0PauvF3itnmG1bHeq/E+7e3uUWIozEg21mIuKEwFz7ilPOAIAAA==
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] PSC: draft-dj-mpls-tp-exer-psc
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: Wed, 01 May 2013 23:32:44 -0000
Hi Eric I think we (Eric and me) have different opnions for item #3 in LS (...1234).. (2013/05/02 1:47), Eric Osborne (eosborne) wrote: > Hi Yuji- > > R84a says "84 It MUST be possible to test and validate any protection/ > restoration mechanisms and protocols: > > A. Including the integrity of the protection/recovery transport > path." > > > To me, the 'transport path' is the set of links and nodes between the endpoints of a protection domain, and this function is best served by something like CC/CV. Clearly we disagree here. So far, both without disturbing the transport path that includes the bahaviour of CC/CV and with validating the linear protection protocol, we have (need) EXR. # See 3.2.26 of G.870, please > > Can you help me understand why EXER > a) meets the requirement in R84a > AND > b) is the best way to meet this requirement > ? For b), Yes as in item#3 in the LS Regards, Yuji > > > > > eric > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: mpls-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of >> Yuji Tochio >> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 7:52 PM >> To: mpls@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [mpls] PSC: draft-dj-mpls-tp-exer-psc >> >> Hi Eric O and all, >> >> As to the first bullet to the question below, my opinion is YES. >> The reason is it is align with #84 (84A) in RFC 5654. >> >> Just my 2c, >> Yuji >> >> (2013/04/17 21:21), Eric Osborne (eosborne) wrote: >>> This thread is for discussing draft-dj-mpls-tp-exer-psc. We started with -00, >> but there is now a -01. >>> The draft proposes adding the EXER/RR commands found in some ITU linear >> protection protocols to PSC. >>> I have also posted an alternative approach, draft-osborne-mpls-psc-alive-00. >>> Briefly, EXER is a mechanism designed to check the responsiveness of the far- >> end state machine. My proposal, ALIVE, is for a similar mechanism. It works >> differently and thus may be more or less acceptable. >>> The big questions here are: >>> >>> - do we need any sort of EXER-type function at all? >>> - if so, are either of the two proposals sufficient? Is there a better way? >>> - if not, is it possible to provide the same kind of testing and awareness >> through existing mechanisms? is this testing and awareness desirable or >> necessary? >>> but of course any and all discussion is welcome. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> eric >>> _______________________________________________ >>> mpls mailing list >>> mpls@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> mpls mailing list >> mpls@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
- [mpls] PSC: draft-dj-mpls-tp-exer-psc Eric Osborne (eosborne)
- Re: [mpls] PSC: draft-dj-mpls-tp-exer-psc Yuji Tochio
- Re: [mpls] PSC: draft-dj-mpls-tp-exer-psc Eric Osborne (eosborne)
- Re: [mpls] PSC: draft-dj-mpls-tp-exer-psc Yuji Tochio
- Re: [mpls] PSC: draft-dj-mpls-tp-exer-psc Eric Osborne (eosborne)
- Re: [mpls] PSC: draft-dj-mpls-tp-exer-psc Yaacov Weingarten
- Re: [mpls] PSC: draft-dj-mpls-tp-exer-psc Huub van Helvoort