Re: [mpls] On Up and Down MEP in MPLS-TP (RE: 2nd working group last call ondraft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map)

"Zhenlong Cui" <c-sai@bx.jp.nec.com> Wed, 13 March 2013 18:46 UTC

Return-Path: <c-sai@bx.jp.nec.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 E214811E80EA for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 11:46:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.09
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.09 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, 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 IpzsKDTY7zxu for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 11:46:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tyo202.gate.nec.co.jp (TYO202.gate.nec.co.jp [210.143.35.52]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A757B11E80BA for <mpls@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 11:46:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgate3.nec.co.jp ([10.7.69.195]) by tyo202.gate.nec.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.4) with ESMTP id r2DIkSDw010936; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 03:46:28 +0900 (JST)
Received: (from root@localhost) by mailgate3.nec.co.jp (8.11.7/3.7W-MAILGATE-NEC) id r2DIkSR21354; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 03:46:28 +0900 (JST)
Received: from mail01b.kamome.nec.co.jp (mail01b.kamome.nec.co.jp [10.25.43.2]) by mailsv4.nec.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.4) with ESMTP id r2DIkRgA020115; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 03:46:27 +0900 (JST)
Received: from genzui.jp.nec.com ([10.26.220.13] [10.26.220.13]) by mail02.kamome.nec.co.jp with ESMTP id BT-MMP-2385640; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 03:44:42 +0900
Received: from vpcja157 ([10.38.16.157] [10.38.16.157]) by mail.jp.nec.com with ESMTPA id BT-MMP-1428; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 03:44:41 +0900
From: Zhenlong Cui <c-sai@bx.jp.nec.com>
To: 'Gregory Mirsky' <gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com>, 'Shahram Davari' <davari@broadcom.com>, hideki.endo.es@hitachi.com
References: <512C960E.70109@pi.nu><4A6CE49E6084B141B15C0713B8993F281BD962A2@SJEXCHMB12.corp.ad.broa><4A6CE49E6084B141B15C0713B8993F281BD9AAF4@SJEXCHMB12.corp.ad.broa><XNM1$7$0$0$$6$1$2$A$5004088U513f719e@hitachi.com><4A6CE49E6084B141B15C0713B8993F281BD9AB6D@SJEXCHMB12.corp.ad.broadcom.com> <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF11206FBD5@eusaamb103.ericsson.se>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 03:44:39 +0900
Message-ID: <019F8CB7F5324E979B052BD3E35DF1A6@nsl.ad.nec.co.jp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
In-Reply-To: <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF11206FBD5@eusaamb103.ericsson.se>
Thread-Index: AQHOH1NCxu+w5AH5Vkey9NP/4JqeRJij8a7Q
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5931
Cc: mpls@ietf.org, mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map@tools.ietf.org, mpls-ads@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mpls] On Up and Down MEP in MPLS-TP (RE: 2nd working group last call ondraft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map)
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, 13 Mar 2013 18:46:38 -0000

Hi Shahram,

Some, at least in case of ring topology, the LSP UP-MEP is a necessity.

As you know, a intermediate node on a ring network have to supports Swap & POP processing.
There are some OAM models should be taken into consideration for intermediate node, as follows:

(1) Set Down-MEP only
 If we support the down-mep only and set down-mep at Down I/F(swap point), OAM will not be transmitted to downstream node.

(2) Set Down-MIP and UP-MIP
 For support the LSP Protection at the intermediate node, the MEP must be set at the POP Point.
 
 Note:
  MPLS-TP recovery in a ring must protect unidirectional P2MP transport paths as specified in RFC 5654.

(3) Set Down-MIP and UP-MEP
 This model can solve above model's issues.


Best regards,
zhenlong


________________________________________
From: mpls-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Gregory Mirsky
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 3:56 AM
To: Shahram Davari; hideki.endo.es@hitachi.com
Cc: mpls@ietf.org; mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org; mpls-ads@tools.ietf.org; draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [mpls] On Up and Down MEP in MPLS-TP (RE: 2nd working group last call ondraft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map)

Dear All,
What would be the most appropriate subject to continue this discussion? I'll give it a try, please feel free to change it. 
 
I think that there's nothing that can preclude from supporting UP MEP on MPLS-TP LSP, according to UP MEP definition of RFC 6371,
even when multpiple PWs mapped to that LSP. Same, I think, is the true for  p2mp PW. Note that service, VPWS, is not part of MPLS-TP
architecture.
 
        Regards,
                Greg
 
-----Original Message-----
From: mpls-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Shahram Davari
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 11:30 AM
To: hideki.endo.es@hitachi.com
Cc: mpls@ietf.org; mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org; draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map@tools.ietf.org; mpls-ads@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mpls] 2nd working group last call ondraft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map
 
Hideki,
 
So far no RFC or draft has talked about Down or UP MEP for LSPs. But if you think about it logically LSPs can't have UP-MEP because
LSP can carry many PWs and each PW may enter the LSP from a different port/interface.  PWs can have UP-MEP but only for P2P services
(VPWS), otherwise they can't have UP-MEP either (same as LSP).
 
My suggestion is to correct figures and change UP-MEPs to Down-MEPs for LSPs. Also to mention UP-MEP is out of scope.
 
Thx
SD
 
-----Original Message-----
From: hideki.endo.es@hitachi.com [mailto:hideki.endo.es@hitachi.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 11:20 AM
To: Shahram Davari
Cc: loa@pi.nu; mpls@ietf.org; mpls-ads@tools.ietf.org; mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org; draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re:Re: [mpls] 2nd working group last call ondraft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map
 
Hi Shahram,
 
Just one comment.
 
>I would also argue that LSPs can't have UP-MEPs, since PWs from many ingress ports can enter an LSP  and therefore the LSP can't
start on the ingress interface.
 
I think this depends on implementations.
Any RFC don't restrict to DOWN-MEPs in an LSP.
 
Anyway, MEP mechanism is out of scope in this draft as you said.
 
Thanks,
Hideki Endo
 
>Hi,
>
>Although I mentioned I am Ok with the draft to be advanced to RFC, but after reviewing it in more details it appears that the
draft, in spite of its name, does talk about UP-MEP at all and only talks about UP-MIP, while the figures show UP-MEPs for LSPs. 
Even if the scope of the draft is UP-MIP, considering that there can't be a MIP without a MEP,  the draft should have some wording
regarding UP-MEPs and their applicability to LSPs and PWs. I would also argue that LSPs can't have UP-MEPs, since PWs from many
ingress ports can enter an LSP  and therefore the LSP can't start on the ingress interface.
>
>A quick fix at this point is to mention UP-MEP is out of scope and change the figures to only show Down-MEPs. A better fix is to
elaborate on UP-MEP and its applicability and placement, etc.
>
>Regards,
>Shahram
>
> 
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: mpls-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of 
>Shahram Davari
>Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 11:30 AM
>To: Loa Andersson; mpls@ietf.org
>Cc: <mpls-ads@tools.ietf.org>; mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org; 
>draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map@tools.ietf.org
>Subject: Re: [mpls] 2nd working group last call on 
>draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map
>
>My Comments are addressed and I support this draft to be published as Informational  RFC.
>
>Thx
>Shahram
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: mpls-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of 
>Loa Andersson
>Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 3:02 AM
>To: mpls@ietf.org
>Cc: <mpls-ads@tools.ietf.org>; mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org; 
>draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map@tools.ietf.org
>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 (mpls@ietf.org)
>
>This working group last call ends March 13, 2013.
>
>/Loa
>for the MPLS working group co-chairs
>--
>
>
>Loa Andersson                        email: loa@mail01.huawei.com
>Senior MPLS Expert                          loa@pi.nu
>Huawei Technologies (consult)        phone: +46 739 81 21 64
>_______________________________________________
>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
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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