Carlos,
Since the a wg adoption poll I read your comments as that we are doing
progress, and that we can address the rest during the wg process,
correct?
/Loa
On 2018-11-06 00:11, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) wrote:
Hi Greg,
Many thanks for your response and suggestions! Please see inline.
On Nov 2, 2018, at 6:13 AM, Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com
<mailto:gregimir...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Carlos,
thank you for your comments. Please find my notes, answers in-line
tagged GIM>>.
Regards,
Greg
On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 8:47 PM Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
<cpign...@cisco.com <mailto:cpign...@cisco.com>> wrote:
Hi,
Cc BFD WG
It would be useful to understand the use case motivation or
applicability of this draft, other than it can be done.
GIM>> The motivation can be seen in the following (from another draft
that discusses OAM over G-ACh:
In some
environments, the overhead of extra IP/UDP encapsulations may be
considered as overburden and make using more compact G-ACh
encapsulation attractive.
Will add text in the draft.
CMP: Thank you very much. This is a good start, although it would be
useful to add precision into which environments specifically, and the
burden comparison between IP/UDP and G-ACh.
I’m also increasingly concerned by confusing scope and definition
of specifications.
For example:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mirsky-mpls-p2mp-bfd-04#section-3.2
3.2. Non-IP Encapsulation of Multipoint BFD
Non-IP encapsulation for multipoint BFD over p2mp MPLS LSP MUST use
Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) Label (GAL) [RFC5586] at the
bottom of the label stack followed by Associated Channel Header
(ACH). Channel Type field in ACH MUST be set to BFD CV [RFC6428].
First, there’s no definition for non-IP BFD in RFC 5586 — only in
RFC 5885.
GIM>> RFC 5586 defined the use of GAL. I think that this reference is
appropriate. I agree that the second reference should be to RFC 5885,
not RFC 6428. Will make the change.
CMP: Thank you. However, RFC 5885 is in the context of PW VCCV — is
there a missing definition in the specs for BFD over G-ACh generically?
Second, the specification in RFC 6428 applies to MPLS Transport
Profile only. NOT for MPLS, and explicitly NOT for P2MP!
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6428#section-1
This document specifies the BFD extension and behavior to
satisfy the
CC, proactive CV monitoring, and the RDI functional
requirements for
both co-routed and associated bidirectional LSPs. Supported
encapsulations include Generic Associated Channel Label (GAL) /
Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh), Virtual Circuit Connectivity
Verification (VCCV), and UDP/IP. Procedures for unidirectional
point-to-point (P2P) and point-to-multipoint (P2MP) LSPs are for
further study.
So, no, this does not work.
RFC 6428 does not have scope for P2MP.
And RFC 5586 does not specify anything for BFD. Instead, what
needs to be cited (appropriately and expanded) is RFC 5885
GIM>> RFC 5586 specifies the use of GAL and G-ACh and the reference is
used in this context.
CMP: This is the same comment as above.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6428#section-4
RFC 5884 - BFD CC in UDP/IP/LSP
RFC 5885 - BFD CC in G-ACh
GIM>> I'd point that it is for p2p BFD CC, and p2mp BFD uses different
from p2p BFD method to demultiplex BFD control packets.
CMP: Apologies I did not understand this response.
CMP: Thanks again for considering the comment to improve the document.
Thanks,
Carlos.
RFC 5085 - UDP/IP in G-ACh
MPLS-TP - CC/CV in GAL/G-ACh or G-ACh
Thanks,
— Carlos Pignataro
On Oct 13, 2018, at 4:24 PM, Greg Mirsky <gregimir...@gmail.com
<mailto:gregimir...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear WG Chairs, et al.,
as the author of the BFD for Multipoint Networks over
Point-to-Multi-Point MPLS LSP (draft-mirsky-mpls-p2mp-bfd) I
would like to ask you to consider WG adoption call of the draft.
The document addresses non-IP encapsulation of p2mp BFD over MPLS
LSP that may be useful if the overhead of IP, particularly IPv6,
encapsulation is the concern. The base specification of BFD for
Multipoint Networks is at this time in IESG LC.
Regards,
Greg
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
m...@ietf.org <mailto:m...@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
m...@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
--
Loa Andersson email: l...@pi.nu
Senior MPLS Expert
Bronze Dragon Consulting phone: +46 739 81 21 64
