RE: CCAMP drafts for adoption

[Nitin Bahadur <nitinb@juniper.net>]

Hi Attlia,

   What is the limitation of lsp-ping that prevents it from being
applied to GMPLS?
If an existing mechanism can be applied, then why not? If lsp-ping needs
extensions to support GMPLS LSPs, feel free to make/specify those
extensions.

Thanks
Nitin  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Attila Takacs [mailto:Attila.Takacs@ericsson.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 1:52 PM
> To: Nitin Bahadur; Adrian Farrel; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: CCAMP drafts for adoption
> 
> 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
> > 
> > 
>