[mpls] [mpls-tp] comment on draft-boutros-mpls-tp-li-lb-01
xiao.min2@zte.com.cn Thu, 19 August 2010 07:33 UTC
Return-Path: <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn>
X-Original-To: mpls@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50DA23A6843; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 00:33:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -99.837
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.837 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.600, BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_DOUBLE_IP_LOOSE=0.76, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OFXqa86lMo94; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 00:33:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx5.zte.com.cn (mx5.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADCE23A67E1; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 00:33:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.30.17.100] by mx5.zte.com.cn with surfront esmtp id 205951570495873; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 15:32:20 +0800 (CST)
Received: from [10.30.3.19] by [192.168.168.16] with StormMail ESMTP id 61783.1570495873; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 15:24:23 +0800 (CST)
Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse2.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id o7J7XXWO002239; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 15:33:33 +0800 (CST) (envelope-from xiao.min2@zte.com.cn)
To: mpls@ietf.org, mpls-tp@ietf.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.4 March 27, 2005
Message-ID: <OF9216398F.26044381-ON48257784.002934A0-48257784.00296CF4@zte.com.cn>
From: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 15:33:04 +0800
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 6.5.4|March 27, 2005) at 2010-08-19 15:33:22, Serialize complete at 2010-08-19 15:33:22
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 00296CF148257784_="
X-MAIL: mse2.zte.com.cn o7J7XXWO002239
Subject: [mpls] [mpls-tp] comment on draft-boutros-mpls-tp-li-lb-01
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 07:33:15 -0000
Hi Authors and all, In section 5 of this draft, it's stated that "Data packets sent from the sender MEP will be looped back to that sender MEP." To my understanding, any packets sent from an MEP should be treated as OAM packets and flow over G-ACh, and the purpose is to distinguish them from other packets on the transport path. In this case, as specified in section 6.3.2 of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-framework-07, the emulated user traffic may also be inserted by the test equipment, then with the current format of data packets in this draft, there may exists ambiguity between the packets originated from the MEP and the packets inserted by the test equipment. Best Regards, Xiao Min