RE: [PWE3] BFD for MPLS PWs

["Sasha Vainshtein" <[e-mail]>]

Tom,
Looks clear now.

Regards,
            Sasha

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas D. Nadeau [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 5:57 PM
> To: Sasha Vainshtein
> Cc: Mustapha Aissaoui; Luca Martini; pwe3 WG ((((E-mail))))
> Subject: Re: [PWE3] BFD for MPLS PWs
> 
> 
> 
> > Tom,
> > For the sake of clarity:
> >
> > Did you intended to say
> >
> > 	"except where the PW control plane is used to setup the 
> control  
> > (a.k.a. "associated") channel?
> >
> > In which case I fully agree with you.
> 
> 	If (control plane is used to setup the PW)
> 		use it to set up the control channel;
> 	else // When it is not available...
> 		(manually establish the PW and
> 			manually establish the control channel);
> 
> 	--Tom
> 
> 
> >
> > Regards,
> >                     Sasha
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Thomas D. Nadeau [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 4:45 PM
> >> To: Mustapha Aissaoui
> >> Cc: 'Luca Martini'; 'pwe3 WG ((((E-mail))))'; Sasha Vainshtein
> >> Subject: Re: [PWE3] BFD for MPLS PWs
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 	The PW's control channel is orthogonal to
> >> the control plane used to setup the PW (if it
> >> exists) except where the control channel is used
> >> to setup the control channel.
> >>
> >> 	--Tom
> >>
> >>> Luca,
> >>> We already have code points 0x04 and 0x08 for the cases below. The
> >>> only
> >>> justification I could find for not wanting to use an IP control
> >>> channel for
> >>> BFD over a PW is because some implementation may not use an
> >> IP control
> >>> plane, and thus no LDP.
> >>>
> >>> Mustapha.
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Luca Martini [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 7:16 PM
> >>>> To: Mustapha Aissaoui
> >>>> Cc: 'Thomas D. Nadeau'; 'pwe3 WG ((((E-mail))))'; 'Sasha
> >> Vainshtein'
> >>>> Subject: Re: [PWE3] BFD for MPLS PWs
> >>>>
> >>>> Mustapha,
> >>>>
> >>>> I do not agree with your slightly wider statement "an IP
> >>>> control plane may not exist for these implementations". We
> >>>> never said this.
> >>>> What we said is that the Ip header is superfluous for this
> >>>> particular application.
> >>>> The PW status messaging is required by RFC4447 ( the WG
> >>>> insisted on the MUST at the time ), so the VCCV should always
> >>>> use PW status, and may use  BFD status additionally.
> >>>>
> >>>> Option 4 is therefore required.
> >>>>
> >>>> Luca
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Mustapha Aissaoui wrote:
> >>>>> Tom and Sasha,
> >>>>> I do not see the need to add a CV type for the following:
> >>>>> 4) BFD (without IP headers) + status
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The argument used so far was that an IP control plane may
> >> not exist
> >>>>> for these implementations. 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