Re: [PWE3] WG LC on draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-tp-gal-in-pw-01.txt

Luca Martini <lmartini@cisco.com> Sat, 18 June 2011 18:09 UTC

Return-Path: <lmartini@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CA539E8005 for <pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 Jun 2011 11:09:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w6mvblt0v2ku for <pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 Jun 2011 11:09:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from napoleon.monoski.com (napoleon.monoski.com [70.90.113.113]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4D4B9E8021 for <pwe3@ietf.org>; Sat, 18 Jun 2011 11:09:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from seven.monoski.com (host721710020496.direcway.com [72.171.96.204] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by napoleon.monoski.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p5II94Ns003858 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 18 Jun 2011 12:09:16 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <4DFCE9BB.40704@cisco.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 12:08:59 -0600
From: Luca Martini <lmartini@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: David Allan I <david.i.allan@ericsson.com>
References: <60C093A41B5E45409A19D42CF7786DFD521B518CF3@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> <4DFBC94B.9010801@cisco.com> <60C093A41B5E45409A19D42CF7786DFD521B61CAF1@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <60C093A41B5E45409A19D42CF7786DFD521B61CAF1@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "pwe3@ietf.org" <pwe3@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [PWE3] WG LC on draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-tp-gal-in-pw-01.txt
X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge <pwe3.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pwe3>, <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pwe3>
List-Post: <mailto:pwe3@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3>, <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 18:09:28 -0000

Alan,
Thanks for the clarification.
Indeed we have totally opposite views.

Luca


On 06/17/2011 03:45 PM, David Allan I wrote:
> I did read it and given this extract from the document am wondering what part I missed?
>
>    Therefore, this document specifies that the GAL can be used with
>    packets on a G-ACh on LSPs, Concatenated Segments of LSPs, Sections,
>    and PWs in both MPLS and MPLS-TP environments without discrimination.
>
> I would argue that using the GAL for PWs in any environment is a mistake, and this is not the only symptom of the problem... The fix to 5586 should be to PLACE a restiction on the use of the GAL on PWs in MPLS environments...not eliminate the restriction in TP environments.
>
> I hope that is clearer.
>
> cheers
> Dave
> ________________________________
> From: Luca Martini [mailto:lmartini@cisco.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 2:38 PM
> To: David Allan I
> Cc: pwe3@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [PWE3] WG LC on draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-tp-gal-in-pw-01.txt
>
> Dave,
> And everybody else.
>
> Thanks you for your support!
> Since this document does not describe anything of what you mentioned below,
> you must be a supporter !
>
> Please read the document .
>
> Thank you.
> Luca
>
>
> On 06/09/2011 04:43 PM, David Allan I wrote:
>
> I'm opposed to this draft progressing at this time.
>
> At the moment the PW with a CW is a unifying agent that will work in both TP domains and those that employ ECMP and LAG. The GAL/ACh version cannot make this claim.
>
> What would be required to make this acceptable IMO would be agreement with the MPLS WG to produce an RFC that documented excluding reserved labels from ECMP consideration such that GAL/GACh encapsulated PW OAM had "feature parity" with ACh encapsulated PW-OAM...
>
> Then we could reasonably consider taking steps to move to a common OAM encapsulation mechanism common to LSPs and PWs.
>
> My 2 cents
> Dave
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> pwe3 mailing list
> pwe3@ietf.org<mailto:pwe3@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
>
>
>