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

[Rolf Winter <[e-mail]>]

Hi Greg,

you might not be convinced but there are operators that have asked for this functionality based on operational experience. 

Quoting the OAM framework RFC:

" Once a MEG is configured, the operator can enable/disable the MIPs on
   the nodes within the MEG.  All the intermediate nodes and possibly
   the end nodes host MIP(s).  Local policy allows them to be enabled
   per function and per MEG.  The local policy is controlled by the
   management system, which may delegate it to the control plane.  A
   disabled MIP silently discards any received OAM packets."

Clearly having multiple MIPs per LSP is allowed as per the OAM framework. I think however the sentence "All the intermediate nodes and possibly the end nodes host MIP(s)" should really be ""All the intermediate nodes and possibly the end nodes can host MIP(s)" (Is this worth filing an errata?). I don't see why one wants to arbitrarily restrict the number of MIPs per LSP. BTW, as you mention, the support of multiple MIPs in Ethernet is optional. Quoting the OAM framework again:

"Support of per-interface or per-node MIPs is an implementation choice."

So where's the difference?

Best,

Rolf

NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL | Registered in England 2832014 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gregory Mirsky [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Montag, 3. Dezember 2012 21:47
> To: Rolf Winter; Loa Andersson; [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; draft-ietf-
> [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map
> 
> Hi Rolf,
> I've been thinking about that requirement for some time and am not
> convinced that such requirement, support multiple MIP per LSP/PW on
> given LSR/PE, exists. AFAIK, in Ethernet OAM only support of single MIP
> per MD/MEG Level is required and support of multiple MIPs is optional.
> True, multiple MIPs of different MD/MEG Levels might be enabled on a
> node but in MPLS-TP we use SPME to model MD/MEG Levels and thus such
> MIPs are on different LSPs. As for p2mp case, I'm not sure how dat-
> plane loopback can be used on uni-directional construct.
> 
>         Regards,
>                 Greg
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rolf Winter [mailto:[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]> ]
> Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 12:15 PM
> To: Gregory Mirsky; Loa Andersson; [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; draft-ietf-
> [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map
> 
> Hi Greg,
> 
> But that's the whole point of the document. There can be multiple in-
> and out-MIPs per LSP plus in the P2MP case there can be multiple out-
> MIPs per node. It cannot be based local configuration. There has to be
> information inside the OAM frame to address the respective MIP. Section
> 4 of the document has a (I believe) pretty good example of this.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Rolf
> 
> NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road,
> London W3 6BL | Registered in England 2832014
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gregory Mirsky [mailto:[e-mail]
> > <mailto:[e-mail]> ]
> > Sent: Montag, 3. Dezember 2012 19:20
> > To: Rolf Winter; Loa Andersson; [e-mail]
> > Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; draft-ietf-
> > [e-mail]
> > Subject: RE: working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-
> map
> >
> > Hi Rolf,
> > Do you envision that multiple MIPs, both in- and out-, required to be
> > supported on a given LSP/PW? I think that     only single MIP
> required
> > per LSP/PW on an LSR/PE node. If that is the case, then there might
> be
> > no apparent need to explicitly address in- and out- MIP as such
> > distinction becomes part of local configuration.
> >
> >        Regards,
> >                Greg
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]
> > <mailto:[e-mail]> ] On Behalf Of Rolf Winter
> > Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 5:42 AM
> > To: Loa Andersson; [e-mail]
> > Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; draft-ietf-
> > [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [mpls] working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-
> mip-
> > mep-map
> >
> > Loa,
> >
> > These have been mentioned:
> >
> > 1. CV between a MEP and a MIP
> > 2. traceroute over an MPLS-TP LSP and/or an MPLS-TP PW containing
> MIPs
> > 3. data-plane loopback configuration at a MIP 4. diagnostic tests
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Rolf
> >
> > NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road,
> > London W3 6BL | Registered in England 2832014
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Loa Andersson [mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> ]
> > > Sent: Freitag, 30. November 2012 11:41
> > > To: [e-mail]
> > > Cc: [e-mail]; Martin Vigoureux;
> > > draft-ietf-mpls-tp- [e-mail];
> > > [e-mail]
> > > Subject: Re: working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-
> > map
> > >
> > > Authors,
> > >
> > > Can you plese give me an indication of which OAM functions the
> > > separation of in and out MIPs are intended for?
> > >
> > > /Loa
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2012-11-14 16:16, Loa Andersson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > >
> > > Loa Andersson                         email:
> > [e-mail]
> > > Sr Strategy and Standards Manager            [e-mail]
> > > Ericsson Inc                          phone: [phone]
> > >                                               [phone]
> > _______________________________________________
> > mpls mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>
>