IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mpls] PSC: draft-dj-mpls-tp-exer-psc

"Eric Osborne (eosborne)" <eosborne@cisco.com> Wed, 01 May 2013 16:47 UTC

Return-Path: <eosborne@cisco.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 D404921F9980 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 May 2013 09:47:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 FGkdORugH8Sb for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 May 2013 09:47:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F07D221F9992 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 May 2013 09:47:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2345; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1367426854; x=1368636454; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=u6iZBzvpps8T4mNAlGN14lvAIpfeHn+OMBdCjoML790=; b=GkBXmu3rKeSARqaybW6mV+bkfhyeEnFNwb0OQp3V0WXmS5irqu6BiRna 1RpLRxCm6/jMZDDmQKlI0H0ndJViHO/3OCliKLY/uOoHkNEckgvc8YM0c RqIiM8Shw04zwCoIjMCk7BtqVe3iaTWxk7tpqcm6DILtADqpBJ8MldA0E w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgMFAKNGgVGtJV2Y/2dsb2JhbABSgwc3vxx8FnSCHwEBAQQBAQE3NBcEAgEIEQQBAQEKFAkHJwsUCQgBAQQBEgiIBAy/IQSOcTgGgmthA6hagw2BayQY
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,590,1363132800"; d="scan'208";a="202276579"
Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP; 01 May 2013 16:47:33 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x09.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x09.cisco.com [173.36.12.83]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r41GlXHs008675 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 1 May 2013 16:47:33 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.83]) by xhc-aln-x09.cisco.com ([173.36.12.83]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Wed, 1 May 2013 11:47:33 -0500
From: "Eric Osborne (eosborne)" <eosborne@cisco.com>
To: Yuji Tochio <tochio@jp.fujitsu.com>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [mpls] PSC: draft-dj-mpls-tp-exer-psc
Thread-Index: Ac47ZWRjRJBAvDu6T4ia+zSmFq3r6QJ+QPwAAEs9aQA=
Date: Wed, 01 May 2013 16:47:32 +0000
Message-ID: <20ECF67871905846A80F77F8F4A275721015D2FF@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com>
References: <20ECF67871905846A80F77F8F4A27572101502A9@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <517F078E.5030002@jp.fujitsu.com>
In-Reply-To: <517F078E.5030002@jp.fujitsu.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.98.66.68]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [mpls] PSC: draft-dj-mpls-tp-exer-psc
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, 01 May 2013 16:47:39 -0000

Hi Yuji-

  R84a says "84  It MUST be possible to test and validate any protection/
       restoration mechanisms and protocols:

       A.  Including the integrity of the protection/recovery transport
           path."


To me, the 'transport path' is the set of links and nodes between the endpoints of a protection domain, and this function is best served by something like CC/CV.  Clearly we disagree here.

Can you help me understand why EXER 
  a) meets the requirement in R84a
 AND
 b) is the best way to meet this requirement
?




eric

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpls-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Yuji Tochio
> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 7:52 PM
> To: mpls@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [mpls] PSC: draft-dj-mpls-tp-exer-psc
> 
> Hi Eric O and all,
> 
> As to the first bullet to the question below, my opinion is YES.
> The reason is it is align with #84 (84A) in RFC 5654.
> 
> Just my 2c,
> Yuji
> 
> (2013/04/17 21:21), Eric Osborne (eosborne) wrote:
> > This thread is for discussing draft-dj-mpls-tp-exer-psc.  We started with -00,
> but there is now a -01.
> >
> > The draft proposes adding the EXER/RR commands found in some ITU linear
> protection protocols to PSC.
> > I have also posted an alternative approach, draft-osborne-mpls-psc-alive-00.
> > Briefly, EXER is a mechanism designed to check the responsiveness of the far-
> end state machine.  My proposal, ALIVE, is for a similar mechanism.  It works
> differently and thus may be more or less acceptable.
> >
> > The big questions here are:
> >
> > - do we need any sort of EXER-type function at all?
> > - if so, are either of the two proposals sufficient?  Is there a better way?
> > - if not, is it possible to provide the same kind of testing and awareness
> through existing mechanisms?  is this testing and awareness desirable or
> necessary?
> >
> > but of course any and all discussion is welcome.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > eric
> > _______________________________________________
> > mpls mailing list
> > mpls@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email