RE: CCAMP drafts for adoption

[<neil.2.harrison@bt.com>]

You should not be using one DP OAM (heavyweight) function to activate
(deactivate??) another DP OAM (lightweight) function.  However, since
LDP does not create proper connections there is no concept of LSP (path)
set-up/tear-down...ergo LSP ping tries to treat it like a cl-ps mode
network case. This is NOT the case for GMPLS...esp when applied to any
co-cs mode technology (here proper connections are forced), and it is
not the case for the co-ps mode when proper connections are used (eg
RSVP-TE in MPLS).

Hopwever to be very clear here...it is operationally critical to be able
to activate/decativate OAM flows in sync with whatever CP or MP process
is responsible for connection set-up/tear-down in both co-cs and co-ps
mode layer networks....and LSP ping simply does not fit the bill here.

regards, Neil


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Nitin Bahadur
> Sent: 02 December 2008 22:01
> 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
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
>