RE: [mpls] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-sig-requirement-03.txt

Seisho,

I have a question on this draft:

In section 1 there is the following stated requirement:
"A P2MP TE LSP will be protected by fast error recovery mechanisms to
minimize disconnection of a P2MP service."

Which is obviously sensible, and of course implies that all the defect
cases of interest can be detected and the appropriate consequent actions
taken.  Note this should include defects of this layer network and not
just defects that arise in lower layer networks.  And remember....the
links between nodes in this layer network are provided by (p2p) trails
in a lower layer network....and this client/server relationship recurses
to the duct.  The point I am making here is that IF the lower layer
network has decent OAM itself you should get some indication of failure
from this, but this is over/above any defects you detect in this layer
network either from (i) lower layer defects or (ii) defects arising in
this layer network (which of course cannot be detected at all in any
lower layer network).

Yet it says in section 1.1 that a 'non-objective' is:
"OAM for P2MP LSPs"

Can someone please explain this apparent contradiction?

regards, Neil

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls