Re: [mpls] 2nd working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map

[Rolf Winter <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

the wording is not as explicit as you suggest but for a requirement I personally feel that is alright since we do not yet know how the solution looks like. In other words, once a solution is proposed it is up to the WG to decide whether the overhead of that particular solution is acceptable or not. 

Best,

Rolf

NEC Europe Ltd | Registered Office: Athene, Odyssey Business Park, West End  Road, London, HA4 6QE, GB | Registered in England 2832014


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> Pablo Frank
> Sent: Dienstag, 12. März 2013 16:16
> To: Shahram Davari
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-
> [e-mail]; <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [mpls] 2nd working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-
> mip-mep-map
> 
> I'm still a little wary of the wording on pg. 9, 4th bullet.  Currently,
> the draft suggests that packet inspection needs to be minimized.  My
> concern with the original solution proposal was that it required a new
> line-rate *lookup*.  There was a secondary concern around parsing TLVs
> which this point *does* appear to address, but minimizing 'inspection'
> does not seem to preclude new lookups.  One of the nice things about
> MPLS OAM as it's defined today is that relatively easy to get off-the-
> shelf forwarding hardware to trap / redirect OAM frames to a separate
> OAM block that could perform the OAM validation and lookups.  This is
> because encountering a GACh or a TTL expiry as part of regular MPLS
> handling unambiguously terminates the frame (and note that it doesn't
> require an OAM-specific lookup in the main-line forwarding hardware).
> I'd like this draft to set avoiding new OAM-specific lookups as a
> design objective, or you risk precluding a whole class of (cheap, high
> volume) hardware from being able to do this function.
> 
> regards,
> Pablo
> 
> 
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Shahram Davari <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 	My Comments are addressed and I support this draft to be
> published as Informational  RFC.
> 
> 	Thx
> 	Shahram
> 
> 
> 	-----Original Message-----
> 	From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> Behalf Of Loa Andersson
> 	Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 3:02 AM
> 	To: [e-mail]
> 	Cc: <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; draft-
> [e-mail]
> 	Subject: [mpls] 2nd working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-
> tp-mip-mep-map
> 
> 	Working Group,
> 
> 	draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map-05.txt has been updated after a
> 	previous last call, due to the nature a and extent of the updates
> 	we have chosen to start a 2nd wg last call.
> 
> 	The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> 	https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map
> 
> 	There's also a htmlized version available at:
> 	http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map-05
> 
> 	A diff from the previous version is available at:
> 	http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map-
> 05
> 
> 	Please send your comments, including approval of the documents
> and
> 	the updates to the mpls working group list ([e-mail])
> 
> 	This working group last call ends March 13, 2013.
> 
> 	/Loa
> 	for the MPLS working group co-chairs
> 	--
> 
> 
> 	Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
> 	Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]
> 	Huawei Technologies (consult)        phone: [phone]
> <tel:%2B46%20739%2081%2021%2064>
> 	_______________________________________________
> 	mpls mailing list
> 	[e-mail]
> 	https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> 
> 
> 	_______________________________________________
> 	mpls mailing list
> 	[e-mail]
> 	https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> 
>