[mpls] Comments to draft-vkst-mpls-tp-oam-id-mib-03
Muly Ilan <muly_i@rad.com> Tue, 12 June 2012 13:36 UTC
Return-Path: <muly_i@rad.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 1696F21F8592 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 06:36:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.462
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.462 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SARE_SUB_OBFU_OTHER=0.135, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
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 yjEmjeWp7jSW for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 06:36:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rad.co.il (mailrelay01.rad.co.il [62.0.23.252]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F33F221F8532 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 06:36:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Internal Mail-Server by MailRelay01 (envelope-from muly?i@rad.com) with AES128-SHA encrypted SMTP; 12 Jun 2012 16:17:39 +0300
Received: from EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il ([192.114.24.28]) by EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il ([192.114.24.28]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.004; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 16:36:12 +0300
From: Muly Ilan <muly_i@rad.com>
To: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Comments to draft-vkst-mpls-tp-oam-id-mib-03
Thread-Index: Ac1IoFO7IWKTJMD2SICoICVQM9aplA==
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 13:36:12 +0000
Message-ID: <32CB7A1F0806AB4688CE3F22C29DAC87042C249E@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il>
Accept-Language: en-AU, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [172.17.170.136]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_32CB7A1F0806AB4688CE3F22C29DAC87042C249EEXRAD5adradcoil_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Commtouch-Refid: str=0001.0A0B020A.4FD745CD.021D,ss=1,fgs=0
Subject: [mpls] Comments to draft-vkst-mpls-tp-oam-id-mib-03
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: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 13:36:20 -0000
Hi, It seems that the case of associated bidirectional LSPs is not fully covered by the current draft. According to the MPLS-TP OAM framework, in this case two independent unidirectional MEs should be defined to independently monitor each direction. 1. It would be helpful if there was an indication in the mplsOamIdMeTable whether the ME is uni or bi directional. 2. For associated bidirectional LSPs there are two separate entries in the mplsTunnelTable. Thus, the mplsOamIdMeServicePointer of each of the unidirectional MEs shall point to its relevant entry i.e. to the forward or the reverse tunnel entry. This is another reason to keep the pointer in the ME table and not in the MEG table. The description of mplsOamIdMeServicePointer should be expanded. 3. A proactive OAM session would utilize both MEs (one ME for transmission of OAM packets and the other for reception). This can be indicated by having the same value of mplsOamIdMeProactiveOamSessIndex. Its worth noting it in the description of mplsOamIdMeProactiveOamSessIndex. Regards, Muly