Re: [mpls] working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map

["S. Davari" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Adrian,

You are right and I should have sent these types of comments before last call. I completely understand the procedure.

One thing I didn't understand in your response is that you said in-MIP requires to do the MEPID lookup at line rate anyway. Why is that? 

My understanding is that before this draft,  the process would have been for the ingress to look at TTL and if it is expired then send the packet to OAM processor. 

The MEPID that you suggest in this draft is very useful for filtering out leaked OAM frames from upstream. But lets leave lookup of the MEPID to the OAM processing module (at slower rate) and add an indicator to the OAM packet to indicate whether it should be taken out of the data path in the Ingress or egress.

So can I suggest adding the following text to the draft:

" In addition to the MEPID, which is used to ultimately accept or filter out received OAM packets, OAM packets  should have a simple indicator that identifies whether the OAM packet belongs to in-MIP or Out-MIP".



Regards,
Shahram


On Nov 21, 2012, at 1:16 AM, "Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> <co-author mode>
> 
> Hi Shahram,
> 
> I am worried about the precedent of a comment like this during WG last call.
> While comments that improve the document or point out fundamental flaws are
> welcome whenever they arrive, points with the flavour "I wouldn't have done it
> like this" that arrive this late in the process don't feel very constructive.
> But I will leave the chair to worry about process and try to address the
> technical points...
> 
>> Identifying whether to terminate an OAM packet and process it in In-MIP vs.
> Out-
>> MIP requires line rate lookup, otherwise the OAM packet will not take the same
>> path as data packets.  Therefore any MIP identifier that is proposed in this
> draft
>> requires one extra lookup and therefore adds significantly to cost.
> 
> If I am not wrong, this is a feature of an out-MIP. If you decide to implement
> out-MIPs, and if you want the OAM to follow exactly the same path as the data,
> then it is a requirement that the out interface inspects the packets (at line
> rate) to determine whether they are OAM and targeted at the interface.
> 
> We cannot change that aspect. All we can do is aim to make the lookup as easy as
> possible.
> 
>> Perhaps a
>> similar method to Ethernet MDL/MEL (Maintenance Domain Level) may be used
>> that requires only 3 bits and achieves the same result.
> 
> Perhaps it could.
> But before going there, why is the lookup in the current version of the I-D
> arduous?
> 
> Presumably you do not propose making any change to the way In-MIPs are currently
> identified, so the lookups being done at line rate today on the incoming
> interfaces will not be changed. If you are proposing such a change, then the
> discussion is outside the scope of this I-D and becomes a much wider question
> for the working group.
> 
> This leaves me with the trade-off of enabling a *simpler* lookup on the outgoing
> interfaces versus doing identical lookups on both interfaces. My assumption was
> that if the incoming interface can do the lookup at line rate, it is not hard to
> perform the same lookup on the outgoing interface. Furthermore, there is a
> reduction in complexity by having fewer things to look up. 
> 
> Another possibility is that the full lookup could be done on the incoming
> interface and the packet marked for easy interception on the outgoing interface.
> The concern with this approach is that the packet would no longer be being
> forwarded exactly as data because it would be being modified in flight.
> Furthermore, in the case of P2MP, it is not enough to flag the packet as a local
> Out-MIP and further identifier-based lookup is needed.
> 
> Some of these issues were raised and discussed as the I-D progressed, and some
> of the alternative solutions were tracked with their pros and cons in Appendix A
> of the I-D (look at revision -03).
> 
> Thanks,
> Adrian
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
>> Adrian Farrel
>> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 8:45 AM
>> To: 't.petch'; 'Loa Andersson'; [e-mail]
>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-
>> [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [mpls] working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map
>> 
>> Yeah, it's a boring draft. Did you expect me to co-author anything else?
>> 
>> The point was that when I started the I-D lots of people were saying "it's
>> complex" and "it can't be done" and "it won't be backward compatible".
>> 
>> So the I-D says "here it is"
>> 
>> A (sorry not to offer you excitement)
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: t.petch [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>> Sent: 19 November 2012 12:38
>>> To: Loa Andersson; [e-mail]
>>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; MPLS-TP ad hoc
> team;
>>> [e-mail]
>>> Subject: Re: [mpls] working group last call on
> draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map
>>> 
>>> After getting to section 6 and its features (requirements!), I find
>>> myself underwhelmed; is that it?  Well, I suppose so, it is
>>> Informational and not Standards Track.
>>> 
>>> Meanwhile, I suggest some editorial issues.
>>> 
>>> Title
>>> Handling MPLS-TP OAM Packets Targeted at Internal MIPs
>>> [Handling MPLS-TP OAM Packets Targeted at Interface MIPs
>>> seems a more informative statement unless and until you get to the
>>> definition of Internal in s3; and s6, which is the crux of the document
>>> says
>>> The preferred solution to per-interface MIP message handling is
>>>   presented in this section]
>>> 
>>> s1
>>> two (or more) MIPs per node on both sides of the forwarding engine.
>>> [two on both sides sounds like four in total to me; suggest 'one on each
>>> side of the forwarding engine']
>>> 
>>> s4
>>>   o  CV between a MEP and a MIP
>>> [expand CV on first use]
>>> 
>>> s5
>>> In-band OAM messages are sent using the G-ACh [RFC5586] for MPLS-TP
>>>   LSPs and MPLS-TP PWs, respectively.
>>> ['respectively' suggests to me that there should be two precedents, not
>>> just RFC5586; the second paragraph specifies RFC5586 for LSPs,
>>> RFC6423/RFC4385 for PWs, in which case, strike this sentence as
>>> redundant]
>>> 
>>> s6
>>> The appendix of this document contains a
>>>   few solutions that the authors have discarded which have been left in
>>>   the document for informational purposes.
>>> [not any more they haven't!]
>>> 
>>> The node itself is addresses
>>> [The node itself is addressed]
>>> 
>>> The identification information indside
>>> [The identification information inside ]
>>> 
>>> MIP identifiers are not know
>>> [MIP identifiers are not known]
>>> 
>>> reserved MIP address
>>> [reserved MIP addressses or a reserved MIP address]
>>> 
>>> Tom Petch
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Loa Andersson" <[e-mail]>
>>> To: <[e-mail]>
>>> Cc: <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>; "MPLS-TP ad
>>> hoc team" <[e-mail]>;
>>> <[e-mail]>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 3:16 PM
>>> 
>>>> Working Group,
>>>> 
>>>> This is to start a 2 week working group last call on
>>>> draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map.
>>>> 
>>>> Please send your comments to the mpls working group mailing
>>>> list ([e-mail]).
>>>> 
>>>> Please send both technical comments, and if you are happy with the
>>>> document as is also indications of support.
>>>> 
>>>> This working group last call will end on November 28.
>>>> 
>>>> /Loa
>>>> for the wg co-chairs
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> mpls mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls