Return-Path: X-Original-To: pwe3@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pwe3@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFD8228C0E8 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 19:03:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.744 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.744 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.094, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_DOUBLE_IP_LOOSE=0.76, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 37vvSa3-vc4U for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 19:03:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx5.zte.com.cn (mx6.zte.com.cn [63.218.89.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04AD43A6A60 for ; Thu, 25 Nov 2010 19:03:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.34.0.130] by mx5.zte.com.cn with surfront esmtp id 35101397396305; Fri, 26 Nov 2010 11:03:10 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.30.3.19] by [192.168.168.16] with StormMail ESMTP id 52528.3769657548; Fri, 26 Nov 2010 11:00:01 +0800 (CST) Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse2.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id oAQ34WhF039931; Fri, 26 Nov 2010 11:04:32 +0800 (CST) (envelope-from lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn) In-Reply-To: To: sboutros@cisco.com MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.6 March 06, 2007 Message-ID: From: lizhong.jin@zte.com.cn Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 11:03:31 +0800 X-MIMETrack: S/MIME Sign by Notes Client on JinLiZhong127666/user/zte_ltd(Release 6.5.6|March 06, 2007) at 2010-11-26 11:04:22, Serialize by Notes Client on JinLiZhong127666/user/zte_ltd(Release 6.5.6|March 06, 2007) at 2010-11-26 11:04:22, Serialize complete at 2010-11-26 11:04:22, S/MIME Sign failed at 2010-11-26 11:04:22: The cryptographic key was not found, Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.1FP4|July 25, 2010) at 2010-11-26 11:04:24, Serialize complete at 2010-11-26 11:04:24 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 0010E140482577E7_=" X-MAIL: mse2.zte.com.cn oAQ34WhF039931 Cc: lmartini@cisco.com, pwe3@ietf.org, msiva@cisco.com Subject: Re: [PWE3] draft-boutros-pwe3-mpls-tp-ms-pw-00 X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 03:03:47 -0000 This is a multipart message in MIME format. --=_alternative 0010E140482577E7_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Hi Sami A couple of questions around this draft. 1. section 3.1.1.1, If PW2 is a dynamic segment and does not support PW status, S-PE needs to withdraw its labels from T-PE2 before locking the MPLS LSP. [Lizhong] S-PE should also withdraw its labels from T-PE1 if PW1 is dynamic segment and does not support PW status, since it is locking LSP, not PW, right? 2. section 3.1.1.2, It then sends LI request message to T-PE1. [Lizhong] "It" refers to "S-PE1", right? 3. section 3.2.1, T-PE1 sends an LB request message which is received by S-PE. S-PE can setup the MPLS-TP LSP only if all the PWs carried over that LSP can be setup in loopback mode. If the MPLS-TP LSP is successfully setup in loopback mode, all incoming packets over PW1 will be looped back to T-PE1. [Lizhong] Does that mean the LB packets need to be running over PW, and encapsulated with PW packets? But usually the PW will not shair same fate with LSP. If we want to only do loopback for LSP, it seems that only bidirectional LSP without PHP can do such LB function. Thanks Lizhong > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 02:30:19 -0800 > From: Sami Boutros > Subject: [PWE3] draft-boutros-pwe3-mpls-tp-ms-pw-00 > To: > Cc: "lmartini@cisco.com" , "Siva Sivabalan > \(msiva\)" > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed > > Hi PWE3 working group, > > We have presented "PW Stitching Procedures in MPLS-TP Networks" at > IETF78 and 79 > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boutros-pwe3-mpls-tp-ms-pw-00 > > This informational draft extends the PW stitching procedures defined > in "draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw-18.txt". > It describes the PW status exchange when connecting 2 PW segments > with one or both of them are static running inband PW OAM messages > specified in "draft-ietf-pwe3-static-pw-status-00.txt". > It describes what PW status value to use when (1) one PW segment is > being locked using (LI) or put in Loopback (LB) or (2) when the > MPLS-TP LSP carrying the PW segment is being locked or put in LoopBack. > Lock Instruct (LI) and Loopback (LB) OAM functions for MPLS-TP > networks specified in"draft-ietf-mpls-tp-li-lb-00.txt". > > The authors are seeking more feedback from the mailing list, and > would be grateful if you could review the document and post comments > on the mailing list. > > Thanks, > > Sami > > -------------------------------------------------------- ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail is solely property of the sender's organization. This mail communication is confidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy and are not permitted to disclose the contents of this communication to others. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam system. --=_alternative 0010E140482577E7_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Hi Sami
A couple of questions around this draft.
1. section 3.1.1.1, If PW2 is a dynamic segment and does not support PW status, S-PE needs to withdraw its labels from T-PE2 before locking the MPLS LSP.
[Lizhong] S-PE should also withdraw its labels from T-PE1 if PW1 is dynamic segment and does not support PW status, since it is locking LSP, not PW, right?

2. section 3.1.1.2, It then sends LI request message to T-PE1.
[Lizhong] "It" refers to "S-PE1", right?

3. section 3.2.1, T-PE1 sends an LB request message which is received by S-PE. S-PE can setup the MPLS-TP LSP only if all the PWs carried over that LSP can be setup in loopback mode.

If the MPLS-TP LSP is successfully setup in loopback mode, all incoming packets over PW1 will be looped back to T-PE1.
[Lizhong] Does that mean the LB packets need to be running over PW, and encapsulated with PW packets? But usually the PW will not shair same fate with LSP. If we want to only do loopback for LSP, it seems that only bidirectional LSP without PHP can do such LB function.

Thanks
Lizhong


> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 02:30:19 -0800
> From: Sami Boutros <sboutros@cisco.com>
> Subject: [PWE3] draft-boutros-pwe3-mpls-tp-ms-pw-00
> To: <pwe3@ietf.org>
> Cc: "lmartini@cisco.com" <lmartini@cisco.com>,   "Siva Sivabalan
>    \(msiva\)" <msiva@cisco.com>
> Message-ID: <XFE-SJC-211gOVIBkfZ00000006@xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
> Hi PWE3 working group,
>
> We have presented "PW Stitching Procedures in MPLS-TP Networks" at
> IETF78 and 79
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boutros-pwe3-mpls-tp-ms-pw-00
>
> This informational draft extends the PW stitching procedures defined
> in "draft-ietf-pwe3-segmented-pw-18.txt".
> It describes the PW status exchange when connecting 2 PW segments
> with one or both of them are static running inband PW OAM messages
> specified in "draft-ietf-pwe3-static-pw-status-00.txt".
> It describes what PW status value to use when (1) one PW segment is
> being locked using (LI) or put in Loopback (LB) or (2) when the
> MPLS-TP LSP carrying the PW segment is being locked or put in LoopBack.
> Lock Instruct (LI) and Loopback (LB) OAM functions for MPLS-TP
> networks specified in"draft-ietf-mpls-tp-li-lb-00.txt".
>
> The authors are seeking more feedback from the mailing list, and
> would be grateful if you could review the document and post comments
> on the mailing list.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sami
>
> 

--------------------------------------------------------
ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail is solely property of the sender's organization. This mail communication is confidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy and are not permitted to disclose the contents of this communication to others.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender.
This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam system.
--=_alternative 0010E140482577E7_=--