[PWE3] Question on draft-boutros-pwe3-mpls-tp-ms-pw-01
Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Thu, 19 May 2011 05:40 UTC
Return-Path: <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
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 3789AE0708; Wed, 18 May 2011 22:40:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id J7yRodL0kfpS; Wed, 18 May 2011 22:40:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vx0-f172.google.com (mail-vx0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73FB6E0701; Wed, 18 May 2011 22:40:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vxg33 with SMTP id 33so1963063vxg.31 for <multiple recipients>; Wed, 18 May 2011 22:40:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=pM/UPV3dB//p2TU/17vPfzFdah2t0P3YkjqdTvk5a4c=; b=g76wDNi+w8viXXKLLz4GVYepe00uDMT+H3fpRBqRFzFJBo1r6XHke21InW8rVhKeMX d2NkIS3Lv4XeOGgJG+yUWY9UgwYsoPcBxYV/e9Zg1ivKvhkAGsA9ZSpY/UTpjfpBe2y9 DigwKLveVfi8GYpZTFyrp6DlmsO81tpgpeRt0=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=HJ795g4BJ/IaJovxA6K49yKqVmBmPUV9j6/fWwLpFOoiqdze2f6z3FL2ccGzMC/zG2 7HUuQfzV6NJM2NJ+TL/KgpO3or3MVDDEFsTVP5rNctnqM0UH7Aay9LTni/GWmS4Ijvqx bM7/oC+Iq5Mc+8H24IA+h9kNBE3pG7h8aKhvw=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.176.164 with SMTP id cj4mr3910815vdc.56.1305783623870; Wed, 18 May 2011 22:40:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.156.228 with HTTP; Wed, 18 May 2011 22:40:23 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 22:40:23 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTinPoJhdcmqJDGR8W6igKNZcE1rfGg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
To: "Siva Sivabalan(msiva)" <msiva@cisco.com>, Sami Boutros <sboutros@cisco.com>, Luca Martini <lmartini@cisco.com>, pwe3 <pwe3@ietf.org>, mpls@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="bcaec5015d030dea6204a39a7100"
Subject: [PWE3] Question on draft-boutros-pwe3-mpls-tp-ms-pw-01
X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
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: Thu, 19 May 2011 05:40:25 -0000
Dear Authors, I have a question on Section 3.1.2.1 when Lock (LI) is sent to S-PE. According to draft-ietf-mpls-tp-li-lb-01 Lock operates only on MEP, i.e. it originated by MEP and addressed to MEP. In scenario considered in 3.1.2.1 LI addressed and processed by S-PE which is a MIP, not MEP. I believe that if Loopback to be performed on MS-PW the LI request must be send to remote T-PE. LB then might be set on S-PE or remote T-PE if LI was successful. And I think that referring to nodes as T-PE and S-PE when LI-LB performed on MPLS-TP LSP is confusing. To address PE a PW label must be present which is not the case if scope of LI-LB is the LSP. Regards, Greg
- [PWE3] Question on draft-boutros-pwe3-mpls-tp-ms-… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [PWE3] Question on draft-boutros-pwe3-mpls-tp… Sami Boutros