Re: CCAMP drafts for adoption

Nitin,

The difference is that GMPLS is a control plane, while OAM is supposed to work in the data plane. In transport networks control plane and data plane are separated. In fact, OAM should work without and should not depend upon control plane at all. You can not send Ping messages over lambda layer network connection, can you?
On the other hand, you can use GMPLS to consistently configire OAM function on the connection NEs, and that's what these drafts as I understand are about.

In other words, in MPLS LSP Ping is OAM, while GMPLS can only automate OAM configuration, it can not relalize OAM on its own.

Cheers,
Igor

From: Nitin Bahadur <nitinb@juniper.net>
To: Attila Takacs <Attila.Takacs@ericsson.com>; Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2008 5:01:11 PM
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
> >
> >
>