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

I would prefer UDP based extensions on the lines of RFC4379, with a standard port assigned for TRILL OAM packets. With UDP based solution, the change control is in the TRILL OAM specification. When ICMP is used, the stack has to be upgraded, which is not effective for future versions. Where as with UDP version, it is totally independent to stack upgrades, just like MPLS OAM and also UDP stack is present on RBridges (SNMP access).

cheers
-sam
On Mar 2, 2012, at 8:08 AM, Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir) 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
> _______________________________________________
> rbridge mailing list
> rbridge@postel.org
> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge