Re: [PWE3] Is VCCV LSP Ping to test only MPLS PWs over MPLS PSN ?

[Mark Townsley <[e-mail]>]

Yes Carlos, I think your wording is more accurate. Thanks.

- Mark

Sasha Vainshtein wrote:
> Carlos and all,
> Adding Mark (as the shepherding AD) to the CC list.
> I think that the wording you've proposed would substantially improve 
> the readability of the document.
> Tom,
> Could you possibly re-phrase as per Carlos suggestion during the 
> AUTH48 phase?
> Regards,
> Sasha
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Carlos Pignataro [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 28, 2007 3:47 PM
> *To:* Sasha Vainshtein
> *Cc:* Thomas Nadeau; Raman Rangaswamy; [e-mail]; Vijayanand C - 
> TLS, Chennai.
> *Subject:* Re: [PWE3] Is VCCV LSP Ping to test only MPLS PWs over MPLS 
> PSN ?
>
> Hi,
>
> On 11/28/2007 4:23 AM, Sasha Vainshtein said the following:
>> Tom, Raman and all,
>> My understanding of the original question was (please correct me if I 
>> got something wrong):
>>
>>     /Can LSP ping in VCCV be used to verify the PW connectivity if it
>>     uses, say, MPLS-in-IP or MPLS-in-GRE for transport and the PW
>>     label (bound to the appropriate PW Id or Generalized PW Id FEC)
>>     for PW demultiplexing? And is such a verification required if the
>>     IP connectivity to the remote device is OK?/
>>
>> IMHO the answer is:
>>
>>    *
>>       Such a verification *makes* *sense* (the PW demuxing in the
>>       remote box can go wrong even if the IP transport brings the PW
>>       packets to the correct remote box)
>>    *
>>       LSP Ping in VCCV is the appropriate (and, AFAIK, the only) way
>>       to perform it.
>>
>> Did I miss something?
> I don't think you missed anything. I understood the question (and 
> answer) the same way.
> The relevant text is the one that Raman originally quoted, i.e.:
>    The various VCCV CV Types
>    supported are used only when they apply to the context of the PW
>    demultiplexer in use.  For example, the LSP Ping CV Type should only
>    be used when MPLS is utilized as the PSN.
> However, it is unfortunate that the example (intended to clarify) 
> might be source of confusion. The key is "/only when they apply to the 
> context of the PW demultiplexer in use/", so LSP Ping applies when 
> using MPLS Labels as PW Demultiplexer. The wording chosen in the 
> second sentence (the example) might not be the best to convey the 
> intended meaning. Would it help if the second sentence was reworded from:
>    For example, the LSP Ping CV Type should only
>    be used when MPLS is utilized as the PSN.
> to:
>    For example, the LSP Ping CV Type should only
>    be used when MPLS Labels are utilized as PW Demultiplexer.
> I think that this does not change the intended meaning, but instead it 
> narrows and clarifies the wording of the example, and there's still 
> time for such wording change.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --Carlos.
>
>> Regards,
>> Sasha
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From:* Thomas Nadeau [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 27, 2007 4:26 PM
>> *To:* Raman Rangaswamy
>> *Cc:* [e-mail]; Vijayanand C - TLS, Chennai.
>> *Subject:* Re: [PWE3] Is VCCV LSP Ping to test only MPLS PWs over 
>> MPLS PSN ?
>>
>>
>>> Hi ,
>>> Can I conclude from the below draft sections that
>>> “LSP Ping should be used to test MPLS PWs over MPLS PSN and
>>> it does not applicable to test MPLS PWs over IP PSN(Say GRE tunnel).”
>>
>> VCCV should always be used to test the PW layer regardless of the PW
>> type or encapsulation, and the appropriate tools for the lower layer 
>> to test those.
>> So use LSP ping/trace for MPLS LSPs, and ICMP echo for IP/l2tp
>> tunnels/paths.
>>
>>
>> --Tom
>>
>>
>>> *Draft: draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-15*
>>> *Section 3 : *The CV types include LSP Ping [RFC4379] for MPLS
>>> PWs, and ICMP Ping [RFC0792] [RFC4443] for both MPLS and L2TPv3 PWs. 
>>>  
>>> *Section 4:* The various VCCV CV types supported are used only when they apply to the
>>> context of the PW demultiplexer in use.  For example, LSP Ping type should only be used 
>>> when MPLS is utilized as the PSN.
>>>  
>>> Thanks,
>>> *Raman R*
>>> DISCLAIMER:
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> The contents of this e-mail and any attachment(s) are confidential 
>>> and intended for the named recipient(s) only.
>>> It shall not attach any liability on the originator or HCL or its 
>>> affiliates. Any views or opinions presented in
>>> this email are solely those of the author and may not necessarily 
>>> reflect the opinions of HCL or its affiliates.
>>> Any form of reproduction, dissemination, copying, disclosure, 
>>> modification, distribution and / or publication of
>>> this message without the prior written consent of the author of this 
>>> e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have
>>> received this email in error please delete it and notify the sender 
>>> immediately. Before opening any mail and
>>> attachments please check them for viruses and defect.
>>>
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> pwe3 mailing list
>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> pwe3 mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
>>   
>
> -- 
> --Carlos Pignataro.
> Escalation RTP - cisco Systems


_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3