Re: [mpls] On Up and Down MEP in MPLS-TP (RE: 2nd working group last call ondraft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map)
"Zhenlong Cui" <c-sai@bx.jp.nec.com> Wed, 13 March 2013 20:08 UTC
Return-Path: <c-sai@bx.jp.nec.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 D3E0411E8136 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 13:08:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.09
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.09 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]
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 P1olW4+yEuxs for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 13:07:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tyo201.gate.nec.co.jp (TYO201.gate.nec.co.jp [210.143.35.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4D6211E8135 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 13:07:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgate3.nec.co.jp ([10.7.69.193]) by tyo201.gate.nec.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.4) with ESMTP id r2DK7mL8027054; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 05:07:48 +0900 (JST)
Received: (from root@localhost) by mailgate3.nec.co.jp (8.11.7/3.7W-MAILGATE-NEC) id r2DK7l110964; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 05:07:47 +0900 (JST)
Received: from mail03.kamome.nec.co.jp (mail03.kamome.nec.co.jp [10.25.43.7]) by mailsv3.nec.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.4) with ESMTP id r2DK7lPG023850; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 05:07:47 +0900 (JST)
Received: from saigo.jp.nec.com ([10.26.220.6] [10.26.220.6]) by mail02.kamome.nec.co.jp with ESMTP id BT-MMP-2396734; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 05:06:35 +0900
Received: from vpcja157 ([10.38.16.157] [10.38.16.157]) by mail.jp.nec.com with ESMTP; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 05:06:32 +0900
From: Zhenlong Cui <c-sai@bx.jp.nec.com>
To: 'Shahram Davari' <davari@broadcom.com>, 'Gregory Mirsky' <gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com>, hideki.endo.es@hitachi.com
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.broadcom.com> <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF11206FBD5@eusaamb103.ericsson.se> <019F8CB7F5324E979B052BD3E35DF1A6@nsl.ad.nec.co.jp> <4A6CE49E6084B141B15C0713B8993F281BD9BA08@SJEXCHMB12.corp.ad.broadcom.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 05:06:32 +0900
Message-ID: <7D705B2066364E429D5953D09D609A00@nsl.ad.nec.co.jp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
In-Reply-To: <4A6CE49E6084B141B15C0713B8993F281BD9BA08@SJEXCHMB12.corp.ad.broadcom.com>
Thread-Index: AQHOIBsi00XsWI0hikmKiznQeJ7/zJij96uggAASzMA=
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5931
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: Re: [mpls] On Up and Down MEP in MPLS-TP (RE: 2nd working group last call ondraft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map)
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 20:08:00 -0000
Hi Shahram, Give you an example.... OAM must operate on MPLS-TP nodes that are branch points on point-to- multipoint (P2MP) trees include ring topology. That means that the branch points must be possible to drop & continue the received OAM frame. If the Down-MEP is configured at ingress i/f(LSP Terminal Point) as shown below figure, then the received OAM frame will be blocked by ingress i/f and can't transmit to downstream link. I think it is a problem. -------------------------- | -----| | | N/A | | ->-| |->-------------LSP (Downstream link) | | | Out | | | | i/f | | | -----| |----- | -----| | MEP | ---- | | N/A | | | | |- | | LSP----->-| In |->-| FW |--->-| Out |->----UNI | i/f | | |- | i/f | |----- ---- | -----| | | -----| | | | N/A | | | | | | ->-| Out |->----UNI | | i/f | | -----| -------------------------- Best regards, Zhenlong > -----Original Message----- > From: Shahram Davari [mailto:davari@broadcom.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 3:53 AM > To: Zhenlong Cui; 'Gregory Mirsky'; hideki.endo.es@hitachi.com > 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 group last call ondraft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map) > > Hi, > > I don't really understand what you are trying to say. Can you provide an example. > > Thx > SD > > -----Original Message----- > From: Zhenlong Cui [mailto:c-sai@bx.jp.nec.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 11:45 AM > To: 'Gregory Mirsky'; Shahram Davari; hideki.endo.es@hitachi.com > 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 group last call ondraft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map) > > Hi Shahram, > > Some, at least in case of ring topology, the LSP UP-MEP is a necessity. > > As you know, a intermediate node on a ring network have to supports Swap & POP processing. > There are some OAM models should be taken into consideration for intermediate node, as follows: > > (1) Set Down-MEP only > If we support the down-mep only and set down-mep at Down I/F(swap point), OAM will not be transmitted to downstream node. > > (2) Set Down-MIP and UP-MIP > For support the LSP Protection at the intermediate node, the MEP must be set at the POP Point. > > Note: > MPLS-TP recovery in a ring must protect unidirectional P2MP transport paths as specified in RFC 5654. > > (3) Set Down-MIP and UP-MEP > This model can solve above model's issues. > > > Best regards, > zhenlong > > > ________________________________________ > From: mpls-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Gregory Mirsky > Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 3:56 AM > To: Shahram Davari; hideki.endo.es@hitachi.com > 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: [mpls] On Up and Down MEP in MPLS-TP (RE: 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] On Behalf Of Shahram Davari > Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 11:30 AM > To: 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: 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] > Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 11:20 AM > To: Shahram Davari > Cc: loa@pi.nu; mpls@ietf.org; mpls-ads@tools.ietf.org; mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org; > 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] On Behalf Of > >Shahram Davari > >Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 11:30 AM > >To: Loa Andersson; mpls@ietf.org > >Cc: <mpls-ads@tools.ietf.org>; mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org; > >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] On Behalf Of > >Loa Andersson > >Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 3:02 AM > >To: mpls@ietf.org > >Cc: <mpls-ads@tools.ietf.org>; mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org; > >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) > > > >This working group last call ends March 13, 2013. > > > >/Loa > >for the MPLS working group co-chairs > >-- > > > > > >Loa Andersson email: loa@mail01.huawei.com > >Senior MPLS Expert loa@pi.nu > >Huawei Technologies (consult) phone: +46 739 81 21 64 > >_______________________________________________ > >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 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] 2nd working group last call on draft-ietf-… Loa Andersson
- Re: [mpls] 2nd working group last call on draft-i… hideki.endo.es
- Re: [mpls] 2nd working group last call on draft-i… Shahram Davari
- Re: [mpls] 2nd working group last call on draft-i… Pablo Frank
- Re: [mpls] 2nd working group last call on draft-i… Shahram Davari
- Re: [mpls] 2nd working group last call ondraft-ie… hideki.endo.es
- Re: [mpls] 2nd working group last call ondraft-ie… Shahram Davari
- [mpls] On Up and Down MEP in MPLS-TP (RE: 2nd wor… Gregory Mirsky
- Re: [mpls] 2nd working group last call on draft-i… Rolf Winter
- Re: [mpls] On Up and Down MEP in MPLS-TP (RE: 2nd… Zhenlong Cui
- Re: [mpls] On Up and Down MEP in MPLS-TP (RE: 2nd… Shahram Davari
- Re: [mpls] On Up and Down MEP in MPLS-TP (RE: 2nd… Shahram Davari
- Re: [mpls] On Up and Down MEP in MPLS-TP (RE: 2nd… Gregory Mirsky
- Re: [mpls] On Up and Down MEP in MPLS-TP (RE: 2nd… Shahram Davari
- Re: [mpls] On Up and Down MEP in MPLS-TP (RE: 2nd… Gregory Mirsky
- Re: [mpls] On Up and Down MEP in MPLS-TP (RE: 2nd… Zhenlong Cui
- Re: [mpls] On Up and Down MEP in MPLS-TP (RE: 2nd… Shahram Davari
- Re: [mpls] On Up and Down MEP in MPLS-TP (RE: 2nd… Gregory Mirsky
- Re: [mpls] On Up and Down MEP in MPLS-TP (RE: 2nd… hideki.endo.es
- Re: [mpls] On Up and Down MEP in MPLS-TP (RE: 2nd… Shahram Davari
- Re: [mpls] On Up and Down MEP in MPLS-TP (RE: 2nd… Shahram Davari
- Re: [mpls] On Up and Down MEP in MPLS-TP (RE: 2nd… Gregory Mirsky
- Re: [mpls] On Up and Down MEP in MPLS-TP (RE: 2nd… hideki.endo.es
- Re: [mpls] On Up and Down MEP in MPLS-TP (RE: 2nd… Shahram Davari
- Re: [mpls] On Up and Down MEP in MPLS-TP (RE: 2nd… Shahram Davari
- Re: [mpls] On Up and Down MEP in MPLS-TP (RE: 2nd… Gregory Mirsky
- Re: [mpls] On Up and Down MEP in MPLS-TP (RE: 2nd… Shahram Davari
- Re: [mpls] 2nd working group last call on draft-i… Loa Andersson
- Re: [mpls] On Up and Down MEP in MPLS-TP (RE: 2nd… hideki.endo.es
- Re: [mpls] On Up and Down MEP in MPLS-TP (RE: 2nd… Shahram Davari
- Re: [mpls] On Up and Down MEP in MPLS-TP (RE: 2nd… Pablo Frank
- Re: [mpls] On Up and Down MEP in MPLS-TP (RE:2ndw… hideki.endo.es
- Re: [mpls] On Up and Down MEP in MPLS-TP (RE:2ndw… Shahram Davari
- Re: [mpls] On Up and Down MEP in MPLS-TP (RE:2ndw… Gregory Mirsky
- Re: [mpls] On Up and Down MEP in MPLS-TP (RE:2ndw… Shahram Davari