[PWE3] Thoughts on adoption of draft-zhang-mpls-tp-pw-oam-config-06
"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Sat, 24 September 2011 14:07 UTC
Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED4A721F84DA for <pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 24 Sep 2011 07:07:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.444
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.444 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.155, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 Ncaj5EYkeJqF for <pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 24 Sep 2011 07:07:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (asmtp5.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.176]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22D5721F84B3 for <pwe3@ietf.org>; Sat, 24 Sep 2011 07:07:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p8OE9e2S023586 for <pwe3@ietf.org>; Sat, 24 Sep 2011 15:09:40 +0100
Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p8OE96V7023474 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for <pwe3@ietf.org>; Sat, 24 Sep 2011 15:09:31 +0100
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: pwe3@ietf.org
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 15:09:06 +0100
Message-ID: <058501cc7ac3$9469b9f0$bd3d2dd0$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: Acx6w3t6B6VKa9ygQZu+6QGNntnpEg==
Content-Language: en-gb
Subject: [PWE3] Thoughts on adoption of draft-zhang-mpls-tp-pw-oam-config-06
X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge <pwe3.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pwe3>, <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pwe3>
List-Post: <mailto:pwe3@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3>, <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 14:07:09 -0000
Hi, <Speaking as individual contributor> It seems to me very clear that the PWE3 working group has accepted the value of the role of a control plane in configuring, establishing, activating, and tearing down point-to-point pseudowires. Let us be clear that a control is not a requirement for such pseudowires. It is perfectly possible for "static" pseudowires to be established using the management plane. In fact, if you judge on the grounds of scalability alone, there is not a lot in favour of using the control plane. In the management plane case, four messages flow tough the network (NMS to ingress and response, NMS to egress and response). In the control plane case, four messages also flow (NMS to ingress, ingress to egress and response, ingress response to NMS), but in this case, although the traffic at the NMS is reduced, the ingress and egress must also implement LDP. Furthermore, even in the case of the use of a control plane, the ACs probably require manual configuration. Nevertheless, we appreciate the use of a control plane for a number of reasons. Not least is the automated cross-checking that we get to ensure that the ingress and egress are not subject to misconfiguration. Also included is the extensibility to multi-segment pseudowires with more significant scalability benefits and dynamic location of S-PEs. If people want to debate the value of a control plane for pseudowires, that is OK with me. But I wish they would do it in the open and clearly, not by hiding behind a discussion of OAM configuration. Which brings us on the matter in hand. As Andy has pointed out, the (small) I-D offers two functions: - OAM capability advertisement to handle the new OAM tools from MPLS-TP. - Configuration of those tools using the control plane. It defeats me why these two functions are regarded as radically different from any other element of data plane capability exchange or configuration that is currently available in Targeted LDP for pseudowire establishment and control. The detailed requirements for OAM configuration have been questioned. Maybe these questions come from folk more used to the application of OAM as a post-facto research tool than as an interactive trigger. Pseudowires are increasingly being used to provide "wire emulation" (which should not be a surprise" and need to offer similar services to those we have become used to in circuit-switched environments. If you want to get a better handle on the requirements, I suggest you read http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-oam-configuration-fwk/ FWIW, I have recently heard questions from the field about how to determine whether a pseudowire is actually up, correctly connected, and ready to transmit data. You will note that turning on OAM by hand is slow and requires intervention. Turning on OAM automatically during provisioning will lead to bogus alarms. Thus, the requirements seem pretty clear to me. In summary, I support adoption of this work by the working group so long as there is intention to include the function in at least one implementation. Thanks, Adrian
- [PWE3] Thoughts on adoption of draft-zhang-mpls-t… Adrian Farrel