Re: [mpls] qn on RFC 6428
David Allan I <david.i.allan@ericsson.com> Wed, 29 February 2012 16:57 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 C3FE421F874C for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 08:57:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.069
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.069 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.071, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_44=0.6, 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 pVr6z603RhzI for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 08:57:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from imr4.ericy.com (imr4.ericy.com [198.24.6.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A3F621F874A for <mpls@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 08:57:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from eusaamw0706.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.31]) by imr4.ericy.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id q1TGvb5k015172; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:57:38 -0600
Received: from EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.46]) by eusaamw0706.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.31]) with mapi; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 11:57:31 -0500
From: David Allan I <david.i.allan@ericsson.com>
To: Bala Venkata <balavenkata@aim.com>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 11:57:31 -0500
Thread-Topic: [mpls] qn on RFC 6428
Thread-Index: Acz2rdDECauyp87rT8umPsXyMIDdOQATGOyg
Message-ID: <60C093A41B5E45409A19D42CF7786DFD522CFE5FB9@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se>
References: <mailman.1871.1326864992.3200.mpls@ietf.org> <8CEC4C4EA068E5C-9B4-6CF1@webmail-m055.sysops.aol.com>
In-Reply-To: <8CEC4C4EA068E5C-9B4-6CF1@webmail-m055.sysops.aol.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_60C093A41B5E45409A19D42CF7786DFD522CFE5FB9EUSAACMS0703e_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [mpls] qn on RFC 6428
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, 29 Feb 2012 16:57:44 -0000
Hi Bala: Yes, unfortunately that follow on question dropped through at last my cracks. Apologies! When we did RFC 6371 we were in uncharted territory w.r.t. associated bi-directional. We characterized the MEG for an associated bi-directional LSP as two MEs as they potentially did not share any MIPs in common, nor did the paths fate share, two way RTT measurements did not really tell you much etc. So pretty much all the impact was w.r.t on-demand FM, and PM and it was hard to consider it to be a single bi-directional ME. The MEG was not really a closed system except for the proactive FM case. Pretty much none of that impacted 6428 as CC/CV is purely MEP-MEP proactive FM so no representation was made. And it is not obvious to me that we need to do anything now. I hope this helps Dave ________________________________ From: mpls-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bala Venkata Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 10:46 PM To: mpls@ietf.org Subject: [mpls] qn on RFC 6428 HI Dave,Greg, John & others- What's the response for the following query on RFC 6428: Re: [mpls] Maintenance Entity definition for MPLS-TP: a discrepancy between RFC 6371 and draft-ietf-mpls-rosetta-stone<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls/current/msg07672.html>, I'm interested in knowing about " explicit linkage between the type of the monitored bi-directional LSP (co-routed or associated) and the number of MEs associated with the LSP in RFC 6428 " Thanks ! /bala
- [mpls] qn on RFC 6428 Bala Venkata
- Re: [mpls] qn on RFC 6428 David Allan I