RE: CCAMP drafts for adoption

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

Hi Nitin,

I would formulate this form the other way around. If we already have a
technology agnostic solution, read GMPLS, it seems to be straightforward
to continue using it. Then why not? :-)

One key benefit of using RSVP-TE is that OAM configuration is bound to
the actual LSP establishment this simplifies management and avoids
misconfiguration. With LSP Ping we would need one mechanism to setup the
LSPs (read *not* just MPLS) using GMPLS and then apply another solution
say Generalized-LSP Ping to configure OAM; if I understand your proposal
right.

From another perspective, what would be the use of LSP Ping over, e.g.,
an optical network or Ethernet using CFM?

Best regards,
Attila




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nitin Bahadur [mailto:nitinb@juniper.net] 
> Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 11:01 PM
> To: Attila Takacs; Adrian Farrel; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: CCAMP drafts for adoption
> 
> 
> 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
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
>