Re: [Time] MEP and maintenance domain boundary

Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Wed, 02 July 2014 03:19 UTC

Return-Path: <bill.wu@huawei.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 7CA061A00B8 for <time@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 20:19:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.401
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.401 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 R6w2HYN39KTy for <time@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 20:19:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6DDF91A00A8 for <time@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 20:19:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BJM03381; Wed, 02 Jul 2014 03:19:45 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from NKGEML408-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.39) by lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Wed, 2 Jul 2014 04:19:44 +0100
Received: from NKGEML501-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.155]) by nkgeml408-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.39]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Wed, 2 Jul 2014 11:19:41 +0800
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
To: Yuji Tochio <tochio@jp.fujitsu.com>
Thread-Topic: [Time] MEP and maintenance domain boundary
Thread-Index: AQHPlGMAPmdm9niSIEyuCBB+f0TZxZuKuO5Q//+n6QCAALNHcIAAVWoAgACzyVA=
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 03:19:40 +0000
Message-ID: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA8457C46E@nkgeml501-mbs.china.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> <53B3519C.50403@jp.fujitsu.com>
In-Reply-To: <53B3519C.50403@jp.fujitsu.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.138.41.180]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA8457C46Enkgeml501mbschi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/time/tN2uYdncrwTnp1zYg1bm6DoL7cc
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 03:19:49 -0000

Hi, Yuji:
Thanks for pointing me to the relevant references. I will read.
I see how MEL is used in slide 36 associated with RFC5317.
It looks MEL is used to identify which part of network the fault happens, e.g.,
MEL x: Carrier1;
MEL y: Carrier1, Region 1;
MEL z: Carrier1, Region 2;
Regarding you are saying “MEL is considered for Ethernet OAM but not for MPLS(-TP)”
I am a little bit consumed, Isn’t Ethernet OAM has already been integrated into MPLS-TP?
What am I missing?

Regards!
-Qin
发件人: Yuji Tochio [mailto:tochio@jp.fujitsu.com]
发送时间: 2014年7月2日 8:26
收件人: Qin Wu
抄送: time@ietf.org
主题: Re: [Time] MEP and maintenance domain boundary

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