[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [PWE3] BFD for MPLS PWs

Peter and all,
Please allow me to revert the question you're asking.

Section 7.4. of the ATM Encapsulation draft  (draft-ietf-pwe3-atm-encap-11.txt) 
mandates that upon LOS the ingress PE inserts F4 AIS for every affected VPC.

Is it your opinion that in this case the ingress PE mush send an appropriate
AC status notification in BFD (in addition to F4/F5 AIS insertion) for every
affected PW that uses VCCV BFD with status notification?

And, if yes, how, in your opinion, should the egress PEs handle these notifications?
E.g., should they force F4/F5 AIS on VP/VC that act as the ACs of the affected PWs?

To make it short, IMHO you've raised a very serious issue that is equally applicable
to ALL PW OAM techniques.

Regards,
                               Sasha
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Busschbach, Peter B (Peter) [mailto:busschbach at lucent.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 10:40 PM
> To: 'Luca Martini'
> Cc: Swallow George; 'Thomas D. Nadeau'; Pignataro Carlos; 
> Morrow Monique; pwe3 WG ((((((((E-mail)))))))); Danny 
> McPherson; Agarwal Rahul; Stewart (stbryant) Bryant
> Subject: RE: [PWE3] BFD for MPLS PWs
> 
> 
> Luca,
> 
> Section 7.4 of the ATM Encapsulation draft 
> (draft-ietf-pwe3-atm-encap-11.txt) mandates that upon LOS the 
> ingress PE inserts F4 AIS for every affected VPC. Is it your 
> opinion that because of RFC 4447 the ingress PE must send a 
> PW Status message in addition to F AIS insertion?
> 
> Peter
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Luca Martini [mailto:lmartini at cisco.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 6:29 PM
> > To: Busschbach, Peter B (Peter)
> > Cc: 'Thomas D. Nadeau'; Swallow George; Pignataro Carlos; Morrow
> > Monique; pwe3 WG ((((((((E-mail)))))))); Danny McPherson; 
> > Agarwal Rahul;
> > Stewart (stbryant) Bryant
> > Subject: Re: [PWE3] BFD for MPLS PWs
> > 
> > 
> > Busschbach, Peter B (Peter) wrote:
> > >
> > > In my opinion, the work on VCCV and OAM-MAP provides a 
> > further specification of RFC4447 and in fact overrules the 
> > requirement that LDP Status signaling must be used.
> > >
> > >
> > >   
> > Peter, 
> > We agreed a long time ago that the LDP status messaging was 
> > going to be mandatory , in fact people insisted I make it mandatory.
> > So I would have to say that the LDP status MUST always be 
> > used as mandated in RFC 4447, and the BFD status messaging is 
> > an optional, and , in my opinion, not a very useful option 
> > when LDP is in use.
> > 
> > Luca
> > 
> > 
> > > A minor comment on your email:
> > > I am not sure what you mean by the "de-facto status must 
> > always rely on LDP". Either you declare that that the PW is 
> > down when (1) BFD OR LSP indicate a PW failure, or (2) based 
> > only on the LDP status. In my mind "de-facto status" implies 
> > (2), whereas the beginning of your email says that (1) is the 
> > proposed procedure.
> > >
> > > Peter
> > >  
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > pwe3 mailing list
> > > pwe3 at ietf.org
> > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
> > >   
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pwe3 mailing list
> pwe3 at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
> 

_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3 at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3