Re: [mpls] On Up and Down MEP in MPLS-TP (RE: 2ndworking grouplast

[<[e-mail]>]

Sharam,

Yes niche, but possible.

If there are any possibilities,
we MUST NOT preclude the possibilities in an international standard.

Thanks,
Hideki Endo


>Hideki,
>
>Correct, but such LSP that can only accept packets from a single interface is very niche application and not generic enough to define an UPMEP for it. We need a definition that is applicable to LSPs in general.
>
>Thx
>SD
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] 
>Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 3:31 PM
>To: Shahram Davari
>Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>Subject: Re:RE: On Up and Down MEP in MPLS-TP (RE: [mpls] 2nd working grouplast call o
>
>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:[e-mail]]
>>Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 11:56 AM
>>To: Shahram Davari; [e-mail]
>>Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>>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: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Shahram Davari
>>Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 11:30 AM
>>To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>>Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>>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: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 11:20 AM
>>To: Shahram Davari
>>Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>>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: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
>>>Shahram Davari
>>>Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 11:30 AM
>>>To: Loa Andersson; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>Cc: <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>;
>>>[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>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: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
>>>Loa Andersson
>>>Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 3:02 AM
>>>To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>Cc: <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>;
>>>[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>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 ([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>)
>>>
>>>This working group last call ends March 13, 2013.
>>>
>>>/Loa
>>>for the MPLS working group co-chairs
>>>--
>>>
>>>
>>>Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>Huawei Technologies (consult)        phone: [phone]
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>mpls mailing list
>>>[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>mpls mailing list
>>>[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>mpls mailing list
>>>[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>mpls mailing list
>>[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>>
>>
>
>
>