Re: [rbridge] draft-tissa-trill-oam-03 : ICMP vs RFC 4379 message channel

Hi Tissa,

I am not sure we would want to use the same port for de-multiplexing MPLS
OAM and UDP based TRILL OAM packets.

On another note, I do know that folks use different channels for testing
real application behavior in current networks. So yes UDP based channels
should be good too.

My biggest concern is that we should not have different message formats
when the application works over different layers. It is for that reason
that BFD has been so successful (the same message format/ state machine)
irrespective of the lower layer protocol.

Thanks,
Vishwas

On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 8:08 AM, Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir) <
tsenevir@cisco.com> wrote:

> Dear All****
>
> ** **
>
> Current draft-tissa-till-oam utilize ICMP extensions defined in RFC 4884.
> I have also heard preference of using UDP based messaging channel defined
> in RFC 4379.****
>
> ** **
>
> Advantage of using RFC 4379 methods is we can utilize the same framework
> and OAM challenges in TRILL and MPLS world are similar. However, we need to
> define new TLV series and message types. Question arise whether we should
> use the same wellknown UDP port used in MPLS OAM or a use a different UDP
> port.****
>
> ** **
>
> Advantage of ICMP method is we are utilizing the ICMP infrastructure that
> is commonly utilized in IP world. However, we need to define RFC 4884
> extensions and it also heavily depends on acceptance of individual
> submission draft-shen-traceroute-ping-ext-04.****
>
> ** **
>
> Would like to see the preference from the WG on specific method over the
> other ?****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks****
>
> Tissa****
>
>