Re: Comments to draft-ietf-bfd-mpls-mib-00
venkatesan mahalingam <venkatflex@gmail.com> Thu, 19 July 2012 19:32 UTC
Return-Path: <venkatflex@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C899421F877A; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 12:32:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.148
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.148 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_33=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fd1rIQJQ569L; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 12:32:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vb0-f44.google.com (mail-vb0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C39D21F877B; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 12:32:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vbbez10 with SMTP id ez10so2537438vbb.31 for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 12:33:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=nHN/gE2RnK1qegbfJDEr9CDlaosFIGgzHC5gPvebAB8=; b=oMgH5aQvhRLix7/lVwfBvgKKqtXZ53bez08BgYI1rcFnUN2+RalIulHB9++pRyWpmE Ji63fCGZmd+3B9DlVBPd6f6u4KMUEHeGV6hyu1QSwSJBhN1HE4efHx9ZmPH3RA4Rv4V7 nEsqXWhi7KSl2Vbdzj3lHKZ8firJxN68YWwrfCn2iIIexZthe36j16tyPkm5+ofsF3n5 NOsLxNstxd7XJ6NJCh4xLRc+NxR5QaMXDIEtCxL8wHGSi9bMKHCY+e2tGwPvgw8LZvC+ HFhS1myFUffF94bXpsLO2u+ZPOuFZ+wb4JV1ofwoYoV/XIpUv3nRch4AHehecly+Ll4z dj2A==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.8.17 with SMTP id f17mr2037022vcf.11.1342726390366; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 12:33:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.32.14 with HTTP; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 12:33:10 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <32CB7A1F0806AB4688CE3F22C29DAC87042C81AD@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il>
References: <CALXanX+A-7VxygX1KsEZrpF7qeBr5kxWysN9WdbeGQ-jMcQGsA@mail.gmail.com> <32CB7A1F0806AB4688CE3F22C29DAC87042C81AD@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 12:33:10 -0700
Message-ID: <CALXanX+fTdzTpMVbjOUyH1So=0jaxiLNd4TYH+vRJ=8r-yuDUQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Comments to draft-ietf-bfd-mpls-mib-00
From: venkatesan mahalingam <venkatflex@gmail.com>
To: Muly Ilan <muly_i@rad.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="bcaec54ee5988740f004c533d9a5"
Cc: mpls <mpls@ietf.org>, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>, Kannan KV Sampath <Kannan.Sampath@aricent.com>, Sam Aldrin <sam.aldrin@gmail.com>, Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau@juniper.net>
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" <rtg-bfd.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtg-bfd>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 19:32:24 -0000
OK, thanks Muly. Cheers, Venkat. On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 1:58 AM, Muly Ilan <muly_i@rad.com> wrote: > Hi Venkat.,**** > > ** ** > > Regarding the 3rd issue, of “session mode”. I haven’t requested to define > a MIB object for the coordinated/independent modes.**** > > I merely suggested to rename “bfdMplsSessMode” to “bfdMplsSessFunction” > to avoid misunderstandings.**** > > ** ** > > Muly**** > > ** ** > > *From:* venkatesan mahalingam [mailto:venkatflex@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, July 18, 2012 8:41 AM > *To:* Muly Ilan > *Cc:* rtg-bfd@ietf.org; mpls; Kannan KV Sampath; Sam Aldrin; Thomas Nadeau > *Subject:* Re: Comments to draft-ietf-bfd-mpls-mib-00**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > Thanks Muly for your comments, please see my answers inlined with the tag > [VM].**** > > ** ** > > Cheers,**** > > Venkat.**** > > ** ** > > Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 14:08:32 +0000 > From: Muly Ilan <muly_i@rad.com> > To: "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org> > Subject: Comments to draft-ietf-bfd-mpls-mib-00 > Message-ID: > <32CB7A1F0806AB4688CE3F22C29DAC87042C799D@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Hi, > > 1. > In section 5.2.2, Example of BFD Session configuration for Maintenance > Entity of MPLS-TP TE tunnel, the object mplsOamIdMeProactiveOamSessIndex of > the ME table in draft-vkst-mpls-tp-oam-id-mib is not mentioned. > It would be helpful to explain that when a BFD session with > bfdMplsSessMapType=mep(6) is created in the bfdSessTable, the value of the > object mplsOamIdMeProactiveOamSessIndex should be updated with the BFD > session index. > > [VM] OK**** > > > 2. > For the associated bidirectional LSPs case there would be two > unidirectional MEs that together operate the BFD session. To which one of > the MEs should the map pointer, bfdMplsSessMapPointer, point? > I think it may point to either one of the unidirectional MEs i.e. make it > implementation specific, but this should be described in the MIB. > [VM] This draft suggests to map each ME of LSP/PW entry with the BFD > session entry, for associated bidirectional case, having an BFD session > entry to point to either one of the unidirectional ME is purely > implementation specific, IMO, nothing needs to be described.**** > > > 3. > The term "session mode" in RFC6428 refers to coordinated operation vs. > independent operation. However the current object bfdMplsSessMode sets the > BFD functionality to cc(1) or cv(2). Suggest to rename the object to > bfdMplsSessFunction.**** > > [VM] IMO,MIB object for coordinated & independent session mode operation > is not required as we can infer it from bfd.MinRxInterval value 0.**** > > ** ** > > bfdMplsSessMode denotes the BFD message format (CC/CV) to be carried in the BFD control packet, IMO this MIB object should be retained.**** > > if this MIB object name does not convey the right meaning, we might need to choose appropriate MIB object name.**** > > > 4. > There's a need to configure what is the consequent action upon > mis-connectivity defect and LOC defect. Possible values: alarm only, alarm > and block data. > Separate configuration for mis-connectivity and for LOC. Default value for > mis-connectivity is alarm and block data. Default value for LOC is alarm > only. > Maybe a common behavior for all BFD sessions is sufficient. In this case > define two scalar objects. > [VM] OK**** > > > 5. > Suggest to add counters for received and transmitted CC and CV packets. > Need separate counters for CC and CV. > [VM] OK > > Regards, > > Muly **** >
- Comments to draft-ietf-bfd-mpls-mib-00 Muly Ilan
- Re: Comments to draft-ietf-bfd-mpls-mib-00 venkatesan mahalingam
- RE: Comments to draft-ietf-bfd-mpls-mib-00 Muly Ilan
- Re: Comments to draft-ietf-bfd-mpls-mib-00 venkatesan mahalingam