Re: CCAMP drafts for adoption

["Thomas D. Nadeau" <tom.nadeau@bt.com>]

On 12/2/08 5:32 PM, "Don Fedyk" <dwfedyk@nortel.com> wrote:

> 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.

    Don,

    LSP ping is used to "bootstrap" BFD for MPLS networks. It is a perfectly
sound method of solving the problem it sought to solve. Please take a look
at this draft-ietf-bfd-mpls-07 for a description of how this works if you
are unfamiliar.    

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

    While not a comprehensive mechanism for doing Ethernet OAM, don't you
think that defining how Ethernet OAM works (or is configured) should be done
by the IEEE?  What you are proposing here by combining these different
things together is what at least smells like what was thrown out in L2VPN a
number of years ago due to a layer violation when it was tried for
Ethernet/VPLS PWs. 

    --Tom




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