IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Time] MEP and maintenance domain boundary

Yuji Tochio <tochio@jp.fujitsu.com> Wed, 02 July 2014 00:26 UTC

Return-Path: <tochio@jp.fujitsu.com>
X-Original-To: time@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: time@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 616CC1AD62A for <time@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 17:26:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.691
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.691 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R8XdEAug8o17 for <time@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 17:26:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp (fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp [192.51.44.35]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 399331A0ADA for <time@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 17:26:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kw-mxoi1.gw.nic.fujitsu.com (unknown [10.0.237.133]) by fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 290DB3EE0D5; Wed, 2 Jul 2014 09:26:28 +0900 (JST)
Received: from s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s4.gw.nic.fujitsu.com [10.0.50.94]) by kw-mxoi1.gw.nic.fujitsu.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FFDEAC089C; Wed, 2 Jul 2014 09:26:27 +0900 (JST)
Received: from flabmail.flab.fujitsu.co.jp (flabmail.flab.fujitsu.co.jp [10.25.192.52]) by s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 019271DB8040; Wed, 2 Jul 2014 09:26:27 +0900 (JST)
Received: from vskawa.flab.fujitsu.co.jp (vskawa.flab.fujitsu.co.jp [10.25.192.39]) by flabmail.flab.fujitsu.co.jp (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s620QMew032306; Wed, 2 Jul 2014 09:26:26 +0900
X-AuditID: 0a19c027-f79316d00000123b-42-53b351b239ad
Received: from dm.kawasaki.flab.fujitsu.co.jp (dm.kawasaki.flab.fujitsu.co.jp [10.25.192.105]) by vskawa.flab.fujitsu.co.jp (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id 4C.31.04667.2B153B35; Wed, 2 Jul 2014 09:26:26 +0900 (JST)
X-SecurityPolicyCheck: OK by SHieldMailChecker v2.2.3
X-SHieldMailCheckerPolicyVersion: FJ-ISEC-20140219
Message-ID: <53B3519C.50403@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 09:26:04 +0900
From: Yuji Tochio <tochio@jp.fujitsu.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
References: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA8457B6A4@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com> <53B15EED.2020701@gmail.com> <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA8457BDB8@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com> <53B27392.4000700@gmail.com> <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA8457BFDF@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA8457BFDF@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------050209050007090701060204"
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFnrBLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsXCJXkgU3dT4OZggwUfLSwez13AajFv1wcm ByaPliNvWT2WLPnJFMAUxWWTkpqTWZZapG+XwJWxaItTQZtxxeT5L9kaGFu1uhg5OSQETCRW /JvLBmGLSVy4tx7I5uIQEnjMKDHx/h0mCGcfo0TXjxWsEFWmEu9n90DZRhJX3t1m72Lk4OAV 0Ja4cjAOJMwioCqxYnMDM4jNJqApcW3mHUYQW1QgWKJ9+1ewZbwCghInZz5hAbFFBOQlGjbf BathFlCWeHn1IhOILSxgLrGj7QoLxA2LmSRWHOoAS3AKhEm8mt/NCtEQJjH1ZSfrBEbBWUjm zkKSgrB1JW6e+MgEYctLbH87hxnC1pF433yRHVl8ASPbKkbJsuLsxPJEvbScxCS9tNKszJLi Ur3kfL2sgk2MkPBX38H4bJHmIUYBDkYlHt4vDpuDhVgTy4orcw8xSnAwK4nwxvMAhXhTEiur Uovy44tKc1KLDzFKc7AoifNe4m8MEBJITyxJzU5NLUgtgskycXBKNTCq7dg3y5jp7YqEU6/c H22MVfR/vz35Jb/kR+f5jCJPIi6qaQhv9JmYHrb83i0Hv3qeX25Tds5ofGm2e+LX2uXiR9dE /Th75V7+Dc+8D2nORv9SLK53zdL8+N76Q3buJpOKKa4+OlIbdX2/NC0/8fmQbm3ChgLG5694 or/f5v18xkXf+mb/nrm2SizFGYmGWsxFxYkAZQWG73sCAAA=
X-TM-AS-MML: No
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/time/rUP3O6nFlHxbsrZ3hnQcR3evi9U
Cc: "time@ietf.org" <time@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Time] MEP and maintenance domain boundary
X-BeenThere: time@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Transport Independent OAM in Multi-Layer network Entity \(TIME\) discussion list." <time.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/time>, <mailto:time-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/time/>
List-Post: <mailto:time@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:time-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/time>, <mailto:time-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 00:26:30 -0000

Hi Qin,

(2014/07/01 20:42), Qin Wu wrote:
>
> Regarding RFC6371, why the IETF insisted on using only
> one maintenance level (MEL) per maintenance entity (ME) in MPLS-TP OAM?
>
> Why multiple MELs per ME is not allowed? Do we need to relax this restriction defined by RFC6371?
>
> If I uses both Ethernet OAM and IP OAM in the same maintenance entity, do I need to allow two MELs per ME?
>
> Or the layer the OAM is applied has nothing to do with MEL?
>
>

The reason of single MEL per ME (LSP) can be found in RFC 5317 and RFC 5860.
The slidew 33 - 38 as attached to RFC 5317 will help you.
Note that MEL is considered for Ethernet OAM but not for MPLS(-TP).

And I recommend you should read draft-ietf-mpls-tp-temporal-hitless-psm for your concern.

Regards, Yuji

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email