Re: [PWE3] BFD for MPLS PWs

[Luca Martini <[e-mail]>]

Rahul Aggarwal wrote:
[snip]
>>
> 
> Agreed. Given the above:
> 
> If VCCV includes a new option to encapsulate BFD packets for MPLS PWs, the
> motivation and applicability of this option should be clearly articulated.
> Further if this applicability includes "static PWs", VCCV must reference a
> document that clearly spells out the definition, motivation, requirements
> and procedures for static PWs. Further if this is the case VCCV must
I diagree.  A reference to rfc4447 is sufficient.

> clearly spell out which of the procedures in VCCV are applicable to these
> "static PWs" and which are not. All of this likely to create much
> discussion and delay VCCV.
> 
> The alternative would be:
> 
> If PWE3 really wants to cater to static PWs, I would suggest the
> group to produce a document that describes how the existing set of
> mechanisms in PWE3 can be used to establish these static PWs and this

this document has already been published as rfc4447 section 3 secont to
last paragraph:
" In addition to the protocol specified herein, static assignment of PW
labels may be used, and implementations of this protocol SHOULD
provide support for static assignment."


> document can desscribe how VCCV can be used for static PWs along with any
> potential changes/enhancements to VCCV and any other PWE3 mechanisms.
> 
VCCV needs to also be able to function for PWs where the labels are
statically assigned.

I do not see a problem here. VCCV will function properly for static PWs.

Luca


> rahul
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 	--tom
>>
>>
>>>> if that would make you sleep better at night.
>>>> Although as you know there are specific
>>>> sections that describe how a PE advertises VCCV capabilities
>>>> using the two signaling protocols (see LT2Pv3 + LDP TLVs). However,
>>>> if you are not using a signaling protocol, you probably don't want
>>>> to advertise the BFD+status code capability (or any others) using
>>>> a signaling protocol, right?
>>>>
>>> Before discussing the procedures for BFD for "static PWs", PWE3
>>> should first spell out the motivation, requirements and
>>> procedures for establishing static PWs and "manually provisioned
>>> PSNs."
>>>
>>> rahul
>>>
>>>> 	--Tom
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> rahul
>>>>>
>>>>>> 	--Tom
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> rahul
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thus, we should restrict the new encapsulation to
>>>>>>>> work without PW status notifications only.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mustapha.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>> From: Thomas D. Nadeau [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 1:51 PM
>>>>>>>>> To: Sasha Vainshtein
>>>>>>>>> Cc: pwe3 WG ((((E-mail))))
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PWE3] BFD for MPLS PWs
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Aug 1, 2006, at 1:07 PM, Sasha Vainshtein wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Tom,
>>>>>>>>>> I've snipped the long discussion to make your summary and
>>>>>>>>> my response
>>>>>>>>>> clearly readable:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ... snipped ...
>>>>>>>>>>>  Lets forget about the LSP ping mode for a second.
>>>>>>>>>>> For BFD there are currently 2 options:
>>>>>>>>>>> 1) BFD
>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>> 2) BFD + status codes.
>>>>>>>>>>> What is being proposed are 4 options now:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 1) BFD (with IP headers)
>>>>>>>>>>> 2) BFD (with IP headers) + status
>>>>>>>>>>> 3) BFD (without IP headers)
>>>>>>>>>>> 4) BFD (without IP headers) + status.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The intent was for options 1/2 to function as-specified
>>>>>>>>>>> today. The
>>>>>>>>>>> latter two are the optimized modes that are useful for those
>>>>>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>>>>>> the latest MPLS CW.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 	--Tom
>>>>>>>>>> [Sasha] This short text clarifies the proposal, it's a pity we
>>>>>>>>>> ahve
>>>>>>>>>> not started from this point.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Now my question:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Would it be correct to say that, where applicable, the actual
>>>>>>>>>> OA&M
>>>>>>>>>> functionality (i.e. ability to detect and trouble-shoot PW
>>>>>>>>>> connectivity
>>>>>>>>>> problems)  provided by
>>>>>>>>>> options (3) and (4) is exactly the same as one provided by
>>>>>>>>>> options
>>>>>>>>>> (1) and (2)
>>>>>>>>>> respectively, while applicability scope of options (1) and
>>>>>>>>>> (2) is
>>>>>>>>>> strictly wider than that of (3) and (4)?
>>>>>>>>> 	I don't see why this matters. All 4 have their place.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 	--Tom
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>                         Sasha
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> pwe3 mailing list
>>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> pwe3 mailing list
>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
>>>>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> pwe3 mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
>>>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pwe3 mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3

_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3