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:tnadeau@cisco.com] 
>> 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
>> pwe3@ietf.org
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
>>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pwe3 mailing list
> pwe3@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3

_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3