Re: [mpls] R: [mpls-tp] wg last call reslution in on mpls-tp-oam framework

Hello Italo,

Firstly I want to clarify that my comment didn't suggest to remove the 
two-way mode.
Secondly could you please explain why you have to restrict the two-way 
mode as estimating the minimum throughput of the two directions and where 
is the requirement?
Thirdly my comment suggested to allow two-way mode to estimate two 
individual available throughputs of the two directions, could you let me 
know what's the defects of this suggestion?

Best Regards,
Xiao Min

"BUSI, ITALO (ITALO)" <italo.busi@alcatel-lucent.com> 
2010/10/02 23:23

收件人
"xiao.min2@zte.com.cn" <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn>, Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
抄送
"mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, MPLS-TP ad hoc team 
<ahmpls-tp@lists.itu.int>, "mpls-tp-bounces@ietf.org" 
<mpls-tp-bounces@ietf.org>, "mpls-tp@ietf.org" <mpls-tp@ietf.org>
主题
R: [mpls-tp] wg last call reslution in on mpls-tp-oam framework

Xiao Min,

Both one‑way and two‑way modes are common practice.

We therefore do not think we need to remove the two-way mode.

The two-way mode by definition estimates the minimum throughput of the two 
directions.

We understand that you are interested in getting the two individual 
available throughputs of the two directions. To address your point, we 
have clarified that:
“
In order to estimate the throughput of each direction uniquely, two 
one-way throughput estimation sessions have to be setup.
“

Italo

Da: mpls-tp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-tp-bounces@ietf.org] Per conto 
di xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
Inviato: lunedì 27 settembre 2010 3.36
A: Loa Andersson
Cc: mpls@ietf.org; MPLS-TP ad hoc team; mpls-tp-bounces@ietf.org; 
mpls-tp@ietf.org
Oggetto: Re: [mpls-tp] wg last call reslution in on mpls-tp-oam framework

Resend following comment without attachments. 
============================================= 

Loa and all, 

I don't agree with the resolution on my comment 6 in the attached word 
document. 

Cited words start====== 
6. In "section 6.3.1" the fifth paragraph, wrt the defined two-way 
throughput estimation which can only return the minimum of available 
throughput of the two directions, I'm not sure about the need from SP. 
Instead, to my understanding it's preferred to define two-way throughput 
estimation as a function which can return two individual available 
throughput of the two directioins, just as packet loss measurement. 

Resolution: A note was added clarifying that two-way throughput estimation 
can only evaluate the minimum of available throughput of the two 
directions. In order to estimate the throughput in both directions, two 
one-way throughput estimation sessions have to be setup. 
Cited words end======= 

My comment intended to change the definition of two-way throughput 
estimation, at least not restrict it with the way that only evaluate the 
minimum of available throughput of the two directions, because I think 
that's unreasonable and I can't see the need for this kind of two-way 
throughput estimation from SP. 

Best Regards, 
Xiao Min 

Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> 
发件人:  mpls-tp-bounces@ietf.org 
2010/09/23 20:02 

收件人
"mpls-tp@ietf.org" <mpls-tp@ietf.org>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, 
MPLS-TP ad hoc team <ahmpls-tp@lists.itu.int> 
抄送

主题
[mpls-tp] wg last call reslution in on mpls-tp-oam framework

All,

the editors of the mpls-tp-oam-framework has sent us these two
word documents to describe how the outstanding wg lc comments has
been resolved.

/Loa

-- 

Loa Andersson                         email: loa.andersson@ericsson.com
Sr Strategy and Standards Manager            loa@pi.nu
Ericsson Inc                          phone: +46 10 717 52 13
                                             +46 767 72 92 13
_______________________________________________
mpls-tp mailing list
mpls-tp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp