Re: [mpls] On Up and Down MEP in MPLS-TP (RE: 2nd working grouplast call o

<hideki.endo.es@hitachi.com> Wed, 13 March 2013 22:31 UTC

Return-Path: <hideki.endo.es@hitachi.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 3A42121F8ABC for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 15:31:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.652
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.652 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.438, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, 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 X5rBMubTJlYM for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 15:31:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail9.hitachi.co.jp (mail9.hitachi.co.jp [133.145.228.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF2DA21F85C0 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 15:31:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mlsv6.hitachi.co.jp (unknown [133.144.234.166]) by mail9.hitachi.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDFF737C83; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 07:31:11 +0900 (JST)
Received: from mfilter06.hitachi.co.jp by mlsv6.hitachi.co.jp (8.13.1/8.13.1) id r2DMVBKB016011; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 07:31:11 +0900
Received: from vshuts04.hitachi.co.jp (vshuts04.hitachi.co.jp [10.201.6.86]) by mfilter06.hitachi.co.jp (Switch-3.3.4/Switch-3.3.4) with ESMTP id r2DMVAdn027678; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 07:31:11 +0900
Received: from gmml25.itg.hitachi.co.jp (unknown [158.213.165.145]) by vshuts04.hitachi.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72D1E14003B; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 07:31:10 +0900 (JST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by gmml25.itg.hitachi.co.jp (AIX5.2/8.11.6p2/8.11.0) id r2DMVAb10149996; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 07:31:10 +0900
Message-Type: Multiple Part
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <XNM1$7$0$0$$6$1$2$A$5004099U5140fe12@hitachi.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: davari@broadcom.com
From: hideki.endo.es@hitachi.com
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 07:30:50 +0900
References: <512C960E.70109@pi.nu> <4A6CE49E6084B141B15C0713B8993F281BD962A2@SJEXCHMB12.corp.ad.broa> <4A6CE49E6084B141B15C0713B8993F281BD9AAF4@SJEXCHMB12.corp.ad.broa> <XNM1$7$0$0$$6$1$2$A$5004088U513f719e@hitachi.com> <4A6CE49E6084B141B15C0713B8993F281BD9AB6D@SJEXCHMB12.corp.ad.broa> <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF11206FBD5@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> <4A6CE49E6084B141B15C0713B8993F281BD9BA48@SJEXCHMB12.corp.ad.broa>
Priority: normal
Importance: normal
X400-Content-Identifier: X5140FE1200000M
X400-MTS-Identifier: [/C=JP/ADMD=HITNET/PRMD=HITACHI/;gmml281303140730427LT]
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: mpls@ietf.org, mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org, mpls-ads@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mpls] On Up and Down MEP in MPLS-TP (RE: 2nd working grouplast call o
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, 13 Mar 2013 22:31:14 -0000

Sharam,

Very simple question.

>Assume there are 2 ingress interfaces A & B. Each interface maps Ethernet traffic
>to its own PW (PW-A and PW-B). Now assume both these PWs go inside the same LSP that exists Interface C. 
Why is this assumption mandatory?

"Assume there are 1 ingress interfaces A. Two VLAN flows in the interface A are mapped
 to different PWs (PW-A and PW-B). Now assume both these PWs go inside the same LSP."
In this case, UP-MEP of the LSP can be at interface A, right?

Thanks,
Hideki Endo


>Greg,
>
>RFC6371 is very high level and does not define whether UP MEP applies to LSP or PW.  Assume there are 2 ingress interfaces A & B. Each interface maps Ethernet traffic to its own PW (PW-A and PW-B). Now assume both these PWs go inside the same LSP that exists Interface C. Now please explain if we were to have an UP-MEP for LSP then on which interface would that LSP UP-MEP reside? Interface A? B? C?
>
>This simple example shows you can't have an LSP UP-MEP.
>
>Thx
>SD
>
>From: Gregory Mirsky [mailto:gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 11:56 AM
>To: Shahram Davari; hideki.endo.es@hitachi.com
>Cc: mpls@ietf.org; mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org; draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map@tools.ietf.org; mpls-ads@tools.ietf.org
>Subject: On Up and Down MEP in MPLS-TP (RE: [mpls] 2nd working group last call ondraft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map)
>
>Dear All,
>What would be the most appropriate subject to continue this discussion? I'll give it a try, please feel free to change it.
>
>I think that there's nothing that can preclude from supporting UP MEP on MPLS-TP LSP, according to UP MEP definition of RFC 6371, even when multpiple PWs mapped to that LSP. Same, I think, is the true for  p2mp PW. Note that service, VPWS, is not part of MPLS-TP architecture.
>
>        Regards,
>                Greg
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: mpls-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org> [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Shahram Davari
>Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 11:30 AM
>To: hideki.endo.es@hitachi.com<mailto:hideki.endo.es@hitachi.com>
>Cc: mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>; mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org<mailto:mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org>; draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map@tools.ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map@tools.ietf.org>; mpls-ads@tools.ietf.org<mailto:mpls-ads@tools.ietf.org>
>Subject: Re: [mpls] 2nd working group last call ondraft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map
>
>Hideki,
>
>So far no RFC or draft has talked about Down or UP MEP for LSPs. But if you think about it logically LSPs can't have UP-MEP because LSP can carry many PWs and each PW may enter the LSP from a different port/interface.  PWs can have UP-MEP but only for P2P services (VPWS), otherwise they can't have UP-MEP either (same as LSP).
>
>My suggestion is to correct figures and change UP-MEPs to Down-MEPs for LSPs. Also to mention UP-MEP is out of scope.
>
>Thx
>SD
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: hideki.endo.es@hitachi.com<mailto:hideki.endo.es@hitachi.com> [mailto:hideki.endo.es@hitachi.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 11:20 AM
>To: Shahram Davari
>Cc: loa@pi.nu<mailto:loa@pi.nu>; mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>; mpls-ads@tools.ietf.org<mailto:mpls-ads@tools.ietf.org>; mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org<mailto:mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org>; draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map@tools.ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map@tools.ietf.org>
>Subject: Re:Re: [mpls] 2nd working group last call ondraft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map
>
>Hi Shahram,
>
>Just one comment.
>
>>I would also argue that LSPs can't have UP-MEPs, since PWs from many ingress ports can enter an LSP  and therefore the LSP can't start on the ingress interface.
>
>I think this depends on implementations.
>Any RFC don't restrict to DOWN-MEPs in an LSP.
>
>Anyway, MEP mechanism is out of scope in this draft as you said.
>
>Thanks,
>Hideki Endo
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>Although I mentioned I am Ok with the draft to be advanced to RFC, but after reviewing it in more details it appears that the draft, in spite of its name, does talk about UP-MEP at all and only talks about UP-MIP, while the figures show UP-MEPs for LSPs.  Even if the scope of the draft is UP-MIP, considering that there can't be a MIP without a MEP,  the draft should have some wording regarding UP-MEPs and their applicability to LSPs and PWs. I would also argue that LSPs can't have UP-MEPs, since PWs from many ingress ports can enter an LSP  and therefore the LSP can't start on the ingress interface.
>>
>>A quick fix at this point is to mention UP-MEP is out of scope and change the figures to only show Down-MEPs. A better fix is to elaborate on UP-MEP and its applicability and placement, etc.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Shahram
>>
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: mpls-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org> [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>>Shahram Davari
>>Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 11:30 AM
>>To: Loa Andersson; mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
>>Cc: <mpls-ads@tools.ietf.org<mailto:mpls-ads@tools.ietf.org>>; mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org<mailto:mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org>;
>>draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map@tools.ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map@tools.ietf.org>
>>Subject: Re: [mpls] 2nd working group last call on
>>draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map
>>
>>My Comments are addressed and I support this draft to be published as Informational  RFC.
>>
>>Thx
>>Shahram
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: mpls-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org> [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>>Loa Andersson
>>Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 3:02 AM
>>To: mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
>>Cc: <mpls-ads@tools.ietf.org<mailto:mpls-ads@tools.ietf.org>>; mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org<mailto:mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org>;
>>draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map@tools.ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map@tools.ietf.org>
>>Subject: [mpls] 2nd working group last call on
>>draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map
>>
>>Working Group,
>>
>>draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map-05.txt has been updated after a previous
>>last call, due to the nature a and extent of the updates we have chosen
>>to start a 2nd wg last call.
>>
>>The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map
>>
>>There's also a htmlized version available at:
>>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map-05
>>
>>A diff from the previous version is available at:
>>http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map-05
>>
>>Please send your comments, including approval of the documents and the
>>updates to the mpls working group list (mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>)
>>
>>This working group last call ends March 13, 2013.
>>
>>/Loa
>>for the MPLS working group co-chairs
>>--
>>
>>
>>Loa Andersson                        email: loa@mail01.huawei.com<mailto:loa@mail01.huawei.com>
>>Senior MPLS Expert                          loa@pi.nu<mailto:loa@pi.nu>
>>Huawei Technologies (consult)        phone: +46 739 81 21 64
>>_______________________________________________
>>mpls mailing list
>>mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>mpls mailing list
>>mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>mpls mailing list
>>mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>mpls mailing list
>mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>
>