[PWE3] RE: PWE OAM Resolution / MPLS PID

["Thomas D. Nadeau" <tnadeau@cisco.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Seery [mailto:m_seery@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 12:16 PM
> To: tnadeau@cisco.com
> Cc: pwe3@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: PWE OAM Resolution / MPLS PID
> 
> 
> 
> > 1) We require a mechanism to distinguish OAM flows
> > in
> > PWs. The discussion is moving in a direction whereby
> > there is a requirement to support multiple flows or combinations of
> > the same (LSP-PING, Y.1711, other) depending on operator 
> > sensibilities.
> 
> I don't think that we need to define
> more than one mechanism for the reasons I have
> explained my my prior posting.  My customers certainly
> 
> don't want more than one mechanism.  Also, before any
> conclusion is drawn, I suggest asking the WG for consensus on 
> such a decision.
> 
> 	--Tom
> 
> MS=> So now we get in to the old what is a major
> problem. Dave has asserted that Y.1711 requires
> meaningful less processing than PW VCCV. This is
> considered important in the mode where OAM is being
> run x/sec on every LSP in order to identify defects
> and suppress alarm storms.

	I would ask Dave if he ask implemented Y.1711
or if his customers are actually using it. I have an 
implementation of both VCCV and LSP ping that seem
to work fine.  There have been SPs on this list too 
that have also pointed out that this approach is ok 
for them.

	--Tom


> Tom, Can you please comment on how you see the
> processing difference and whether you think it
> would/would not make a difference if running OAM in
> this way.
> 
> More generally, do you assert that PW VCCV has
> equivalent functionality to Y.1711 including the
> generation of FDI etc.
> 
> Thanks,
> Mark
> 


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