Re: [mpls] IPR poll on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map

[Pablo Frank <[e-mail]>]

Hi Rolf,

To me, the concepts of up/down MEP/MIP vs. node/interface-MEP/MIPs are
orthogonal concepts.  In 802.1q, the up/down direction of MP is in
reference to the direction (in the baggy-pants model) in which it sends and
consumes frames (i.e. the "active" side). For example, an up-MEP transmits
"up" towards the forwarding function while a down-MEP transmits "down"
towards the interface.  MIPs are modeled as two MIP-Half-Functions because
they're basically active in either direction.  I've interpreted
per-Interface MIPs to be really both MHFs together.  (I suppose you could
extend this to say that per-Node MIPs are like down-MHF only).

Strictly speaking, you're hitting the "down-MHF" if your traceroute message
terminates at what you call the "in-MIP".  You're hitting the "up-MHF" of
the MIP on the other side of the device when the message terminates at the
"out-MIP".  Personally, I find that unintuitive so I actually prefer your
in-MIP/out-MIP terminology.

If you're going to introduce this new terminology though, you'll want to
include a section that explains this mapping.

regards,
Pablo


On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 5:51 PM, Rolf Winter <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Greg,
>
> thanks for the comments. Some relies inline.
>
> NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London
> W3 6BL | Registered in England 2832014
>
>
> > *     Section 3
> >
> > *     Note that RFC 6371 refers to per-interface MEP as Up and Down
> > (Section 3.3, p.15) whereas in this document per-interface MIPs
> > referred as in- and out-. I think that both types of Maintanence Points
> > (MP) must use one terminology in regard to location in per-interface
> > model.
>
> I see your point. But I think you could argue this two ways. I personally
> liked in- and out-MIP as it illustrates the point of MIPs being transit
> points and therefore somewhat different in nature. RFC 6371 does talk about
> per-interface MIPs but does not name them in any way, which I found strange
> at first. Can someone involved in the ITU-T (or IEEE for that matter) maybe
> comment on terminology here. Up/Down MEP is a commonly used term, but how
> about per interface-MIPs?
>
> >
> > *     Section 4.
> >
> > *     I believe that CV operation can be performed only between MEPs,
> > not between MEP and MIP, as stated in the document.
>
> Would qualifying it as on-demand CV work for you?
>
> > *     I think that "diagnostic tests" is bit too open-ended and would
> > suggest considering making this bullet more specific or removing it
> > altogether.
>
> This is a term taken from 5860 - the OAM requirements. I agree that a
> number of more specific OAM functions fall into the category of diagnostic
> test, but using the term should be fine give that it has been used already
> in RFCs. Would you agree?
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Rolf
>
> >
> >
> >         Regards,
> >                 Greg
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:mpls-
> > [e-mail]> ] On Behalf Of Loa Andersson
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 12:51 AM
> > To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > Cc: [e-mail]; MPLS-TP ad hoc team
> > Subject: [mpls] IPR poll on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map
> >
> > Working Group,
> >
> > the authors of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map have indicated that the
> > draft is ready for working group last call.
> >
> > Before we start the working group last call an IPT poll is needed.
> >
> > This is to start the IPR Poll.
> >
> > Are you aware of any IPR that applies to draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-
> > map?
> >
> > If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules
> > (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
> >
> > If you are listed as a document author or contributor please respond to
> > this email regardless of whether or not you are aware of any relevant
> > IPR. The response needs to be sent to the MPLS wg mailing list. The
> > documents will not advance to the next stage until a response has been
> > received from each author and contributor.
> >
> > If you are on the MPLS WG email list but are not listed as an author or
> > contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of
> > any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules.
> >
> >
> > Thanks, Loa
> > (as MPLS WG co-chair)
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> > Loa Andersson                         email: [e-mail]
> > Sr Strategy and Standards Manager            [e-mail]
> > Ericsson Inc                          phone: [phone]
> >                                               [phone]
> > _______________________________________________
> > mpls mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>