RE: CCAMP drafts for adoption

["Don Fedyk" <dwfedyk@nortel.com>]

Hi Nitin 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Nitin Bahadur
> 
> 
> > > 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?

These drafts support configuration of data plane OAM functions when you
are using RSVP-TE to setup the paths.  The alternative is operator
configuration. It has nothing to do with LSP Ping. 

> 
> > 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.

So LSP Ping sets up BFD? Interesting.  While I can see this might be
useful in the case of LDP when debugging a problem you do have issues
with LSP-Ping reaching all path combinations and certain error
scenarios. I don't think this is a comprehensive mechanism. 

This is clearly different than what we are specifying in the Ethernet
OAM case. 

Regards,
Don    



> We should go along the same path for Ethernet OAM.
> 
> Thanks
> Nitin
> 
>