Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GD7Pg-0002G9-KG; Tue, 15 Aug 2006 18:29:32 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GD7Pf-0002G3-QR for pwe3@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Aug 2006 18:29:31 -0400 Received: from napoleon.monoski.com ([63.227.123.227]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GD7Pe-0007Ub-62 for pwe3@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Aug 2006 18:29:31 -0400 Received: from [209.245.27.1] (napoleon.monoski.com [209.245.27.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by napoleon.monoski.com (8.13.2/8.13.2) with ESMTP id k7FMTFJf013838; Tue, 15 Aug 2006 16:29:16 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <44E24ABB.6030109@cisco.com> Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 16:29:15 -0600 From: Luca Martini User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (X11/20060427) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Busschbach, Peter B (Peter)" Subject: Re: [PWE3] BFD for MPLS PWs References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH authentication, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0a1 (napoleon.monoski.com [209.245.27.1]); Tue, 15 Aug 2006 16:29:17 -0600 (MDT) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.28 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9182cfff02fae4f1b6e9349e01d62f32 Cc: Swallow George , "'Thomas D. Nadeau'" , Pignataro Carlos , Morrow Monique , "pwe3 WG \(\(\(\(\(\(\(\(E-mail\)\)\)\)\)\)\)\)" , Danny McPherson , Agarwal Rahul , "Stewart \(stbryant\) Bryant" X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org 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