IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mpls] Up and Down MEPs in RFC 6371

Maarten vissers <maarten.vissers@huawei.com> Thu, 12 January 2012 16:12 UTC

Return-Path: <maarten.vissers@huawei.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 7F0BC21F84D7 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 08:12:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 XLnRWOVDCdEK for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 08:12:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FED021F8471 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 08:12:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.2.3-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id ADH77248; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 16:11:59 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML405-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 16:09:20 +0000
Received: from LHREML509-MBX.china.huawei.com ([10.201.4.177]) by lhreml405-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.201.5.242]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 16:10:35 +0000
From: Maarten vissers <maarten.vissers@huawei.com>
To: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Up and Down MEPs in RFC 6371
Thread-Index: AczQYDsyb2944ONySw2ev+hjiAJNFAAAJX4gAA2af1AAKvkNoA==
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 16:10:34 +0000
Message-ID: <D62E6669B3621943B7632961308F8F9E0DD2CF07@lhreml509-mbx>
References: <A3C5DF08D38B6049839A6F553B331C760115EDD18C02@ILPTMAIL02.ecitele.com> <A3C5DF08D38B6049839A6F553B331C760115EDD18C10@ILPTMAIL02.ecitele.com> <FE60A4E52763E84B935532D7D9294FF13229989ECA@EUSAACMS0715.eamcs.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <FE60A4E52763E84B935532D7D9294FF13229989ECA@EUSAACMS0715.eamcs.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.202.112.212]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D62E6669B3621943B7632961308F8F9E0DD2CF07lhreml509mbx_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Subject: Re: [mpls] Up and Down MEPs in RFC 6371
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: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 16:12:46 -0000

Up MEPs are used at administrative domain boundaries in the Transport Service layer (PW, service-LSP), e.g. at UNI-N and E-NNI ports.
At UNI-N ports an UP MEPs terminate a PW/service-LSP Service Provider ME and a PW/service-LSP Network Operator ME.
At ENNI ports an UP MEP terminates a PW/service-LSP Network Operator ME.

UP MEPs can also be used to test connectivity and performance of a connection through a switch fabric.

In equipment with two switch fabrics (one for transport service layer signals, second for transport path layer signals) you will have a Transport-LSP MEP which is both a Down MEP from the transport service layer switch fabric and a UP MEP from the transport path layer switch fabric. In equipment with a single switch fabric, the transport-LSP MEP is a Down MEP.

Regards,
Maarten

From: mpls-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Gregory Mirsky
Sent: woensdag 11 januari 2012 20:58
To: Alexander Vainshtein; David Allan I; Italo.Busi@alcatel-lucent.com
Cc: mpls@ietf.org; Stewart Bryant (stbryant@cisco.com)
Subject: Re: [mpls] Up and Down MEPs in RFC 6371

Dear Sasha, et al.,
would offer my $.02.
Couple somewhat generic comments:

  *   in most cases, nodal MEP is identical to Down MEP
  *   ME that is terminated by Up MEPs is different from ME terminated by Down MEPs over the same LSP/PW
  *   ME can be terminated by MEP of the same class, i.e. nodal, Up or Down
  *   I don't know how practical are Up MEPs for MPLS-TP
 More notes are in-line and tagged GIM>>.

    Regards,
        Greg

________________________________
From: mpls-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alexander Vainshtein
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 5:03 AM
To: David Allan I; Italo.Busi@alcatel-lucent.com
Cc: mpls@ietf.org; Stewart Bryant (stbryant@cisco.com)
Subject: Re: [mpls] Up and Down MEPs in RFC 6371
Dave, Italo and all,
An additional question:

Is there any relationship between per-node vs. per-interface MEPs and per-platform vs. per-interface label spaces?
If yes, does it mean that only per-node MEPs can be encountered in the case of PWs?
 GIM>> I think that per-interface MEPs can be placed properly onto PW. IMO, PW's Up MEP would be associated with AC and Down MEP would be associated with PW/virtual interface itself.

Regards, and, again, lots of thanks in advance,
     Sasha

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status