RE: CCAMP drafts for adoption

["Attila Takacs" <Attila.Takacs@ericsson.com>]

Hi Nitin,

Please note that these mechanisms are proposed for GMPLS and as such to
provide support for any data plane technology specific OAM mechanism. As
you noted LSP Ping is for MPLS and BFD only.  

Best regards,
Attila

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Nitin Bahadur
> Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 10:35 PM
> To: Adrian Farrel; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: CCAMP drafts for adoption
> 
> 
> 
> > > draft-takacs-ccamp-oam-configuration-fwk-01.txt
> > > draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-03.txt
> 
> Do not support either of these.
> 
> From the oam-config-fwk draft:
> > A new useful application of RSVP-TE is OAM configuration 
> and control 
> > for transport networks.
> 
> LSP-ping was designed as an OAM mechansim for MPLS LSPs. Why 
> do we need another mechanism? What are the limitations of 
> lsp-ping that warrant this new mechanism?
> 
> > When RSVP-TE is used for LSP establishment it is desirable 
> to bind OAM 
> > setup to connection establishment signalling to avoid two separate 
> > management/configuration steps
> 
> draft-ietf-bfd-mpls specifies how to use LSP-Ping for 
> automatic setup of BFD-based OAM.
> We should go along the same path for Ethernet OAM.
> 
> Thanks
> Nitin
> 
>