IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mpls] Doubts in allocation of a new G-ACH type for

David Allan I <david.i.allan@ericsson.com> Wed, 11 July 2012 16:07 UTC

Return-Path: <david.i.allan@ericsson.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 6E7B611E8114; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 09:07:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.539
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.539 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.059, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 QeKIq5bJ8lY7; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 09:07:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imr4.ericy.com (imr4.ericy.com [198.24.6.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7577211E8085; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 09:07:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eusaamw0711.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.178]) by imr4.ericy.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id q6BG7V9H016944; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 11:07:34 -0500
Received: from EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.11]) by eusaamw0711.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.178]) with mapi; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 12:07:27 -0400
From: David Allan I <david.i.allan@ericsson.com>
To: Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>, "swallow@cisco.com" <swallow@cisco.com>, "jdrake@juniper.net" <jdrake@juniper.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 12:07:26 -0400
Thread-Topic: Doubts in allocation of a new G-ACH type for
Thread-Index: Ac1fUxknWPfc/Fv5TJmTM15xHce7WgAK655Q
Message-ID: <60C093A41B5E45409A19D42CF7786DFD53BC0658B4@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se>
References: <F9336571731ADE42A5397FC831CEAA0209A20B@FRIDWPPMB001.ecitele.com>
In-Reply-To: <F9336571731ADE42A5397FC831CEAA0209A20B@FRIDWPPMB001.ecitele.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_60C093A41B5E45409A19D42CF7786DFD53BC0658B4EUSAACMS0703e_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, Mishael Wexler <Mishael.Wexler@ecitele.com>, "tnadeau@juniper.net" <tnadeau@juniper.net>, "pwe3 (pwe3@ietf.org)" <pwe3@ietf.org>, Rotem Cohen <Rotem.Cohen@ecitele.com>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Doubts in allocation of a new G-ACH type for
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: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 16:07:07 -0000

Hi Sasha:

The reason for this is the overall system behavior implied. A 5885 code point is purely CC operation. A 6428 code point indicates that CV will be interleaved with the stream. We wanted to explicitly disambiguate this.

It further permits misbranching of a 5885 stream into a 6428 path to be detected so the overall network is more robust. If the CC messages in both 5885 and 6428 had a common code point, this would not be possible, and CV operation would not be authoritative.

I hope this helps
Dave

________________________________
From: Alexander Vainshtein [mailto:Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 3:51 AM
To: David Allan I; swallow@cisco.com; jdrake@juniper.net
Cc: cpignata@cisco.com; tnadeau@juniper.net; mpls@ietf.org; pwe3 (pwe3@ietf.org); Rotem Cohen; Andrew Sergeev; Mishael Wexler
Subject: Doubts in allocation of a new G-ACH type for

Hi all,
I have doubts regarding allocation of the G-ACH type for the MPLS-TP CC message in RFC 6428<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6428>.

Looking at both this RFC and RFC 5885<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5885>, it seems that the format of the MPLS-TP CC packet and the format of the raw BFD packet in VCCV is exactly the same. However, two different G-ACH types have been allocated by IANA for these two cases.

IMHO and FWIW such duplication can only create interoperability problems, especially with progress of the new VCCV Type (using GAL) for PWs. The text in Section 3.1 of 6428 that refers to existing capability to run BFD over LSP with the G-ACh using Channel Type 7 only adds to the confusion IMO, since it uses un-capitalized "may" and not one of the IETF reserved requirement level words.

Clarification of intentions by the editors of RFC 6428 (and/or of RFC 5885) would be highly appreciated.

Regards,
     Sasha


This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains information which is CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If you have received this transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phone or fax, and then delete the original and all copies thereof.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email