Jaihari Kalijanakiraman | 3 Jan 18:26 2012

Questions on draft-vkst-mpls-tp-oam-id-mib-01

Hi Authors,


Happy new year to all..

I have few queries on the draft..

1. The draft "draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-mpls-tp-oam-conf-03" talks about configuration of various OAM functions for an LSP or MEG. Shouldnt the MIB have objects to configure these OAM functions as part of MEG configuration?

2. Will this MIB be enhanced also to configure "Y.1731 based OAM for MPLS-TP"?

3. The ME table has objects for configuring PhbTCValues for OAM packets. As per MPLS-TP OAM framework, the OAM packets has to fate share with the data traffic. If thats the case, what is the use for these objects?

4. The RFC 6427 "MPLS Fault Management OAM" talks about server layer MEP sending FM message to the client layer MEPs.. How these server-client relationships be configured or derived? Shouldnt there be objects for identifying the server-client relationships??

 
Thanks & Regards,
Jai Hari M.K.
IP Infusion.
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
Stewart Bryant | 3 Jan 19:02 2012
Picon

Re: Questions on draft-vkst-mpls-tp-oam-id-mib-01


> 2. Will this MIB be enhanced also to configure "*Y.1731 based OAM for 
> MPLS-TP*"?
>
Without prejudice to any decisions on Y.1731 and MPLS-TP.

Wouldn't such a MIB be a derivative of the Y.1731 MIB?

Stewart
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

Sam Aldrin | 3 Jan 19:12 2012
Picon

Re: Questions on draft-vkst-mpls-tp-oam-id-mib-01

[speaking as a co-author of the MIB]

I echo what Stewart has said.
In addition, unless IETF standardizes a specific technology, in this case, Y.1731 based MPLS TP OAM, it is
not prudent to add MIB objects supporting that specific technology. If at all the need arises and the
requirement needs to be fulfilled, will surely address that. At this point we do not see the need.

Cheers
Sam

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 3, 2012, at 10:02 AM, Stewart Bryant <stbryant <at> cisco.com> wrote:

> 
>> 2. Will this MIB be enhanced also to configure "*Y.1731 based OAM for MPLS-TP*"?
>> 
> Without prejudice to any decisions on Y.1731 and MPLS-TP.
> 
> Wouldn't such a MIB be a derivative of the Y.1731 MIB?
> 
> Stewart
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls <at> ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

Thomas Nadeau | 3 Jan 20:03 2012

Re: [mpls] Questions on draft-vkst-mpls-tp-oam-id-mib-01


	Stewart,

	The question of whether or not to allow "configuration" via the OAM protocols (or protocol extensions)
was something I raised several months ago in PWE3, although it was also discussed in MPLS as I recall in
Taipei as well. It seems to have arisen again.   The conclusions in PWE3 were to allow configuration of only
OAM-related things (i.e.: not allowing expansion of the protocols for general configuration).
Presumably configuration via MIBs there is still okay. In MPLS I recall the chairs stating that
configuration was a thing reserved for NetConf when the question of MIB-based configuration was raised
for WG MIB drafts in general (and in particular WRT to the MPLS-TP MIBs).    Those positions seem slightly at
odds with each other.  And now your answer now seems inconsistent with those as
  well.

	Can we get a single answer from the ADs/IESG on this that pertains to all MPLS-TP related work?

	--Tom

On Jan 3, 2012, at 1:02 PM, Stewart Bryant wrote:

> 
>> 2. Will this MIB be enhanced also to configure "*Y.1731 based OAM for MPLS-TP*"?
>> 
> Without prejudice to any decisions on Y.1731 and MPLS-TP.
> 
> Wouldn't such a MIB be a derivative of the Y.1731 MIB?
> 
> Stewart
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls <at> ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> 

_______________________________________________
CCAMP mailing list
CCAMP <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp

internet-drafts | 5 Jan 16:49 2012
Picon

I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-impairments-09.txt


A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item
of the Common Control and Measurement Plane Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : A Framework for the Control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSON) with Impairments
	Author(s)       : Young Lee
                          Greg M. Bernstein
                          Dan Li
                          Giovanni Martinelli
	Filename        : draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-impairments-09.txt
	Pages           : 31
	Date            : 2012-01-05

   As an optical signal progresses along its path, it may be altered by
   the various physical processes in the optical fibers and devices it
   encounters. When such alterations result in signal degradation,
   these processes are usually referred to as "impairments". These
   physical characteristics may be important constraints to consider
   when using a GMPLS control plane to support path setup and
   maintenance in wavelength switched optical networks.

   This document provides a framework for applying GMPLS protocols and
   the PCE architecture to support Impairment Aware Routing and
   Wavelength Assignment (IA-RWA) in wavelength switched optical
   networks. Specifically, this document discusses key computing
   constraints, scenarios and architectural processes: Routing,
   Wavelength Assignment, and Impairment Validation. This document does
   not define optical data plane aspects; impairment parameters,
   measurement of, or assessment and qualification of a route, but
   rather it describes the architectural and information components for
   protocol solutions.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-impairments-09.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-impairments-09.txt

_______________________________________________
CCAMP mailing list
CCAMP <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp

internet-drafts | 5 Jan 17:28 2012
Picon

I-D Action: draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-impairments-10.txt


A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item
of the Common Control and Measurement Plane Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : A Framework for the Control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSON) with Impairments
	Author(s)       : Young Lee
                          Greg M. Bernstein
                          Dan Li
                          Giovanni Martinelli
	Filename        : draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-impairments-10.txt
	Pages           : 31
	Date            : 2012-01-05

   As an optical signal progresses along its path, it may be altered by
   the various physical processes in the optical fibers and devices it
   encounters. When such alterations result in signal degradation,
   these processes are usually referred to as "impairments". These
   physical characteristics may be important constraints to consider
   when using a GMPLS control plane to support path setup and
   maintenance in wavelength switched optical networks.

   This document provides a framework for applying GMPLS protocols and
   the PCE architecture to support Impairment Aware Routing and
   Wavelength Assignment (IA-RWA) in wavelength switched optical
   networks. Specifically, this document discusses key computing
   constraints, scenarios and architectural processes: Routing,
   Wavelength Assignment, and Impairment Validation. This document does
   not define optical data plane aspects; impairment parameters,
   measurement of, or assessment and qualification of a route, but
   rather it describes the architectural and information components for
   protocol solutions.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-impairments-10.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-impairments-10.txt

_______________________________________________
CCAMP mailing list
CCAMP <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp

The IESG | 5 Jan 22:32 2012
Picon

Document Action: 'A Framework for the Control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSON) with Impairments' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-impairments-10.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'A Framework for the Control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks
   (WSON) with Impairments'
  (draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-impairments-10.txt) as an Informational RFC

This document is the product of the Common Control and Measurement Plane
Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Adrian Farrel and Stewart Bryant.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-impairments/

Technical Summary

  This document provides a framework for applying GMPLS protocols and
  the PCE architecture to support Impairment Aware Routing and
  Wavelength Assignment (IA-RWA) in wavelength switched optical
  networks. This document does not define optical data plane aspects;
  impairment parameters, measurement of, or assessment and
  qualification of a route, but rather it describes the architectural
  and information components for protocol solutions.

Working Group Summary

  Nothing unusual in the WG process. 
  The document is considered to be both stable and complete.

Document Quality

  This document is an informational framework with nothing to implement.
  There are a number of drafts being progressed that address various 
  aspects of the framework.

Personnel

  Deborah Brungard (dbrungard <at> att.com) is the Document Shepherd.
  Adrian Farrel (adrain <at> olddog.co.uk) is the Responsible AD
Greg Mirsky | 6 Jan 00:37 2012
Picon

Re: Questions on draft-vkst-mpls-tp-oam-id-mib-01

Dear Tom, et al.,
I had to refresh my recollection of the discussion in Taipei. According to minutes we don't have the decision regarding the use of MIBs to configure MPLS-TP objects. Somewhere in my memory stuck that the proposal was to limit new MPLS-TP MIBs to R/O and I wonder if it is self-inflicted memory or one of options chairs and the WG is looking into.

Regards,
Greg

On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau <at> lucidvision.com> wrote:

       Stewart,

       The question of whether or not to allow "configuration" via the OAM protocols (or protocol extensions) was something I raised several months ago in PWE3, although it was also discussed in MPLS as I recall in Taipei as well. It seems to have arisen again.   The conclusions in PWE3 were to allow configuration of only OAM-related things (i.e.: not allowing expansion of the protocols for general configuration). Presumably configuration via MIBs there is still okay. In MPLS I recall the chairs stating that configuration was a thing reserved for NetConf when the question of MIB-based configuration was raised for WG MIB drafts in general (and in particular WRT to the MPLS-TP MIBs).    Those positions seem slightly at odds with each other.  And now your answer now seems inconsistent with those as well.

       Can we get a single answer from the ADs/IESG on this that pertains to all MPLS-TP related work?

       --Tom


On Jan 3, 2012, at 1:02 PM, Stewart Bryant wrote:

>
>> 2. Will this MIB be enhanced also to configure "*Y.1731 based OAM for MPLS-TP*"?
>>
> Without prejudice to any decisions on Y.1731 and MPLS-TP.
>
> Wouldn't such a MIB be a derivative of the Y.1731 MIB?
>
> Stewart
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls <at> ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
Sam Aldrin | 6 Jan 00:51 2012
Picon

Re: [mpls] Questions on draft-vkst-mpls-tp-oam-id-mib-01

Hi Greg,

The question was in fact got asked over email by WG chairs, and also by me, when I presented at Quebec and Taipei. The decision was still inconclusive, though the strongest indication given thus far is "TP MIB's should be readonly, albeit OAM configuration like Bfd, ping etc". The other comment George gave at Taipei was "Netconf will be used for configuration".

I have sent a request to WG chairs, after Taipei, to provide a conclusive answer, so that, we could update the drafts accordingly. Yet to receive a answer though.

HTH,
Sam

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 5, 2012, at 3:37 PM, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky <at> gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Tom, et al.,
I had to refresh my recollection of the discussion in Taipei. According to minutes we don't have the decision regarding the use of MIBs to configure MPLS-TP objects. Somewhere in my memory stuck that the proposal was to limit new MPLS-TP MIBs to R/O and I wonder if it is self-inflicted memory or one of options chairs and the WG is looking into.

Regards,
Greg

On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau <at> lucidvision.com> wrote:

       Stewart,

       The question of whether or not to allow "configuration" via the OAM protocols (or protocol extensions) was something I raised several months ago in PWE3, although it was also discussed in MPLS as I recall in Taipei as well. It seems to have arisen again.   The conclusions in PWE3 were to allow configuration of only OAM-related things (i.e.: not allowing expansion of the protocols for general configuration). Presumably configuration via MIBs there is still okay. In MPLS I recall the chairs stating that configuration was a thing reserved for NetConf when the question of MIB-based configuration was raised for WG MIB drafts in general (and in particular WRT to the MPLS-TP MIBs).    Those positions seem slightly at odds with each other.  And now your answer now seems inconsistent with those as well.

       Can we get a single answer from the ADs/IESG on this that pertains to all MPLS-TP related work?

       --Tom


On Jan 3, 2012, at 1:02 PM, Stewart Bryant wrote:

>
>> 2. Will this MIB be enhanced also to configure "*Y.1731 based OAM for MPLS-TP*"?
>>
> Without prejudice to any decisions on Y.1731 and MPLS-TP.
>
> Wouldn't such a MIB be a derivative of the Y.1731 MIB?
>
> Stewart
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls <at> ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
_______________________________________________
CCAMP mailing list
CCAMP <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
Thomas D Nadeau | 6 Jan 13:45 2012

Re: [mpls] Questions on draft-vkst-mpls-tp-oam-id-mib-01

I need to dig up the email, but I am pretty sure that Matthew had sent out a note clarifying things for PWE3. For MPLS I believe that George made the statement at the meeting (the second one in Taipei).  In any event, the point still remains that that there is no clear and consistent directive on this from the IESG right now across various WGs where it needs to be.

--Tom




On Jan 5, 2012, at 6:37 PM, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky <at> gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Tom, et al.,
I had to refresh my recollection of the discussion in Taipei. According to minutes we don't have the decision regarding the use of MIBs to configure MPLS-TP objects. Somewhere in my memory stuck that the proposal was to limit new MPLS-TP MIBs to R/O and I wonder if it is self-inflicted memory or one of options chairs and the WG is looking into.

Regards,
Greg

On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau <at> lucidvision.com> wrote:

       Stewart,

       The question of whether or not to allow "configuration" via the OAM protocols (or protocol extensions) was something I raised several months ago in PWE3, although it was also discussed in MPLS as I recall in Taipei as well. It seems to have arisen again.   The conclusions in PWE3 were to allow configuration of only OAM-related things (i.e.: not allowing expansion of the protocols for general configuration). Presumably configuration via MIBs there is still okay. In MPLS I recall the chairs stating that configuration was a thing reserved for NetConf when the question of MIB-based configuration was raised for WG MIB drafts in general (and in particular WRT to the MPLS-TP MIBs).    Those positions seem slightly at odds with each other.  And now your answer now seems inconsistent with those as well.

       Can we get a single answer from the ADs/IESG on this that pertains to all MPLS-TP related work?

       --Tom


On Jan 3, 2012, at 1:02 PM, Stewart Bryant wrote:

>
>> 2. Will this MIB be enhanced also to configure "*Y.1731 based OAM for MPLS-TP*"?
>>
> Without prejudice to any decisions on Y.1731 and MPLS-TP.
>
> Wouldn't such a MIB be a derivative of the Y.1731 MIB?
>
> Stewart
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls <at> ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

_______________________________________________
CCAMP mailing list
CCAMP <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp

Gmane