[mpls] Questions on BFD MPLS MIB

Saravanan Narasimhan <saravanannarasimhan@gmail.com> Sun, 03 June 2012 07:12 UTC

Return-Path: <saravanannarasimhan@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD3F911E80AB for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 00:12:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gE0bVOq0TSOH for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 00:12:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gg0-f172.google.com (mail-gg0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2848F11E80A6 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 00:12:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ggnc4 with SMTP id c4so2788917ggn.31 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Sun, 03 Jun 2012 00:12:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=DF/x20D/FVY+40In4pXjhA+8kr270nDZxJHzUNHjCTo=; b=m8xbBMhWdhkSS9vxIyqQGd4AuQMA5Wc6K4vc+l14LOQVXMumyZHSl6PSFZfSPZZiV2 m/3RhO/QpvnSC+QcaUVfsiG50dG2011ovpUOOFPCpf9qysPKN9GF0GJDF9AUDo0U95x7 XV3LvzqSFxrCEabYF6xyCxSswSGVZ8I3/ja3e03GViGP65v8f+Hi1yVfsqvlYP/0uxC7 ktbK05brwIX83kCgr1PXf2kUWihy8UEGPDsOtcfLZkbgc44KGkAYuEUDgusdRCAxkbuX JC0y/VT1QVwfpaCBDg7gUUOw1qvs2Fz4AOUK8uJ5Yb+aXj+sr4gqKqrNhrUgmEfq3wjI bCTw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.236.115.163 with SMTP id e23mr3307195yhh.95.1338707570810; Sun, 03 Jun 2012 00:12:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.147.4.30 with HTTP; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 00:12:50 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAPOnYTY3V-8JqUE3UYoY+T_nhChnidiFdpu3N5rWj14JcSKc0g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPOnYTY3V-8JqUE3UYoY+T_nhChnidiFdpu3N5rWj14JcSKc0g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2012 12:42:50 +0530
Message-ID: <CAPOnYTb3EeYF6QHmy-O+-niRhu4K9sd_Wc=4LwJrXQR8nT53fg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Saravanan Narasimhan <saravanannarasimhan@gmail.com>
To: mpls@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="20cf302d49be375ffe04c18c25f5"
Subject: [mpls] Questions on BFD MPLS MIB
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2012 07:12:52 -0000

Hi Authors,

I have a question regarding the Section 5.2.1 of the draft
draft-vkst-bfd-mpls-mib-02.

It states that

" bfdMplsSessMapType = teIpv4(3),

 -- OID of the first accessible object (mplsTunnelName) of
 -- the mplsTunnelEntry identifying the MPLS TE tunnel (being -- monitored
using BFD) in the MPLS tunnel table.
 -- A value of zeroDotzero indicates that no association -- has been made
as yet between the BFD session and the path
 -- being monitored.
 -- In the above OID example:
 -- 100 -> Tunnel Index
 -- 1 -> Tunnel instance
 -- 3221225985 -> Ingress LSR Id 192.0.2.1
 -- 3221225987 -> Egress LSR Id 192.0.2.3

    bfdMplsSessMapPointer = mplsTunnelName.100.1.3221225985.3221225987,
    bfdSessRowStatus = createAndGo
}

Similarly BFD session would be configured on the tail-end of the tunnel.

"

Here, at the tail-end of the tunnel, "Instance" is never really known.
Tunnel can be setup with any tunnel instance (LSP ID) when it is signaled
through RSVP-TE / CR-LDP. It need not be "1" as mentioned in the above
example.

So, We should be setting the map pointer as

"bfdMplsSessMapPointer = mplsTunnelName.100.0.3221225985.3221225987". Am I
right?

Or should we take the approach as defined in PW-MPLS-STD-MIB (RFC 5602)
where OutboundTunnel is mapped to the PW through individual objects
(pwMplsOutboundTunnelIndex, pwMplsOutboundTunnelInstance,
pwMplsOutboundTunnelLclLSR and pwMplsOutboundTunnelPeerLSR with
pwMplsOutboundTunnelInstance as a READ-ONLY parameter) instead of a
RowPointer approach done here. Please clarify.

Also, Can you please clarify how this MIB can be used to monitor a tunnel
setup through 1:1 protection support (RSVP-TE signaling as in RFC 4872) (2
LSP's -> Working and Protection)?

Should we create 2 independent BFD sessions to monitor working and
protection LSP or a single BFD session to monitor both?

If we need to create 2 BFD sessions, how to map tunnel pointer to BFD
session?

Please clarify.

Thank You,
N.Saravanan