RE: [PWE3] BFD for MPLS PWs

Luca,

Section 7.4 of the ATM Encapsulation draft (draft-ietf-pwe3-atm-encap-11.txt) mandates that upon LOS the ingress PE inserts F4 AIS for every affected VPC. Is it your opinion that because of RFC 4447 the ingress PE must send a PW Status message in addition to F AIS insertion?

Peter

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Luca Martini [mailto:lmartini@cisco.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 6:29 PM
> To: Busschbach, Peter B (Peter)
> Cc: 'Thomas D. Nadeau'; Swallow George; Pignataro Carlos; Morrow
> Monique; pwe3 WG ((((((((E-mail)))))))); Danny McPherson; 
> Agarwal Rahul;
> Stewart (stbryant) Bryant
> Subject: Re: [PWE3] BFD for MPLS PWs
> 
> 
> Busschbach, Peter B (Peter) wrote:
> >
> > In my opinion, the work on VCCV and OAM-MAP provides a 
> further specification of RFC4447 and in fact overrules the 
> requirement that LDP Status signaling must be used.
> >
> >
> >   
> Peter, 
> We agreed a long time ago that the LDP status messaging was 
> going to be mandatory , in fact people insisted I make it mandatory.
> So I would have to say that the LDP status MUST always be 
> used as mandated in RFC 4447, and the BFD status messaging is 
> an optional, and , in my opinion, not a very useful option 
> when LDP is in use.
> 
> Luca
> 
> 
> > A minor comment on your email:
> > I am not sure what you mean by the "de-facto status must 
> always rely on LDP". Either you declare that that the PW is 
> down when (1) BFD OR LSP indicate a PW failure, or (2) based 
> only on the LDP status. In my mind "de-facto status" implies 
> (2), whereas the beginning of your email says that (1) is the 
> proposed procedure.
> >
> > Peter
> >  
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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