[mpls] Question regarding RFC 7260

Naveen T <naveen.thanikachalam@yahoo.in> Wed, 22 February 2017 13:54 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 571DC1298BF for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 05:54:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.886
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.886 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_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-1.887, SPF_PASS=-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 sur0MU2B7sFM for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 05:54:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nm39-vm9.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com (nm39-vm9.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com [98.136.216.202]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B01D512988C for <mpls@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 05:54:07 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.in; s=s2048; t=1487771647; bh=SD6uL4PLEIlprbvEPhx5PtbcXTEWtbq6451FtlIvDGs=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Subject:References:From:Subject; b=RRmrDunz+6fyw1wfv1BFhauDnQkqPz+tt7vG94ZDX8eHZg0EKViGz/V/OJhNpBxzxkT345RrYuWkIO4TvHLX4qOQ7Tx6E8tNhtGdWxOi5CWLtz+60E6DuCsicXjKfUxydpq3Xo3qk/muGtryKTaA7lEeD70PirtSOq8hpwpzbQYdEg9+GyvEDL6Kp3mRqnIeveFRq52SOrKnHUcCVcPlsBytOWbS4bnhdHpwASviDqnOrsIID40tAJesRF2a3H9TM3YFD7KRVTcmLkeUm9K7snhV4Z1mpota/KEcFNDIIM1h5SceVJR/lsbqJLMxtl94VPB4oOHWRfWkYlPnASvmpA==
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by nm39.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 22 Feb 2017 13:54:07 -0000
Received: from [98.137.12.188] by nm39.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 22 Feb 2017 13:51:08 -0000
Received: from [106.10.166.114] by tm9.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 22 Feb 2017 13:50:08 -0000
Received: from [106.10.151.254] by tm3.bullet.mail.sg3.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 22 Feb 2017 13:50:08 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1003.mail.sg3.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 22 Feb 2017 13:50:08 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-4
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 408332.49387.bm@omp1003.mail.sg3.yahoo.com
X-YMail-OSG: cM0_B7kVM1l5eE9yMz6QNcN2dLVlOJA1k4nzoXqWelJ1jfjcNhw331JlUIAucVd f06n1Xy5udosbBrIRKdsgr_xectMfOSaqnMymBs1Rf8dFQw0sQoqA_LjC99HMcmmC8sOSCPTI80e UKG5lT_xTl50DgSqtEPETIxgqo42G7ShcvSy9iBikby17hNpzTiZFHOj4Hyo3uYg_YkBLvmke8jh lRcaXyW0v3XjSo0L7FVZ8WwXuO_iuZLVL5aA0G0eSSkPB6op0rmu8lMZTfbdFRRyQkGQozBMlx0t q3ksQfeubv2rMbkIUzMs3PK94DyRKRfmeWuxUPmeLHPDu.s7u.vMW533Yd4VBYPi8V7ye7Eqvmyq iuddqMPlJK1Bs.c2I7mGwrVQZdq04xBsvdSFZYqbg.Bu9kqbyv292Zd9rLxh1TyvfdmK.ZEHo_Ud CO5WK9rWiXGKQUzTPD7NLQ0Co56uM3uxUOZ6Uz4ei6ySmLdWQKk.44OXCBv72LghDtPVukkFMLn. cvZIrFldrXefpXIwa9UYJ7dmyoc97ImTraI96g1E4L2QkGmYxkECYbNIDQx5Q.wNxGrlvpWFEdaI rF_gUtCiasINQhuLzul8-
Received: from jws600054.mail.sg3.yahoo.com by sendmailws111.mail.sg3.yahoo.com; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 13:50:08 +0000; 1487771408.048
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 13:50:07 +0000 (UTC)
From: Naveen T <naveen.thanikachalam@yahoo.in>
To: "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>, Mpls <mpls@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <1379399279.2996090.1487771407858@mail.yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_2996089_2070983222.1487771407856"
References: <1379399279.2996090.1487771407858.ref@mail.yahoo.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/PZOjT_T7w6dT5f5I1dw_WfyvtDc>
Subject: [mpls] Question regarding RFC 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: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 13:54:10 -0000

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:   
   - An IGP path must be established between the MPLS-TP tunnel's ingress and egress LERs.
   - 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.
   - The IGP will ensure that each LER/LSR learns about all the LSRs/LERs along the MPLS-TP transport path.
   - 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