Subject: [mpls] Comments on draft-zhang-mpls-tp-pw-oam-config-04

From: Greg Mirsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 21:33:58 -0700

Dear Authors, Editors, and All,
Please kindly find my comments to the document below

   - Editorial. In Introduction, para 2 's/In contract/In contrast/'
   - section 4.1 positions proactive CC-CV-RDI as extension of BFD and
   states that BFD should evolve to close gaps existing between if and OAM
   solutions defined in ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi. I don't consider solution
   described for proactive CC/CV/RDI as extension of VCCV BFD, RFC 5885 and I
   think that mechanisms defined for proactive CC/CV/RDI can be applied for
   SS-PW and MS-PW as well as they are applicable to p2p bi-directional LSPs,
   co-routed and associated. If that's the case, then VCCV BFD can be used as
   defined in RFC 5885, without modifications and the ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi
   will address proactive CV gap for PW.
   - Section 7.1 I'd propose to define 'C' bit to indicate support of
   CC/CV/RDI in addition to bits L, D, and F because support of VCCV BFD not
   necessarily equates to support of ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi.

Regards,
Greg

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 15:56:56 +0800

Hi Greg

Thanks for your comments, please see the response for them.

 Comments 1: This will be revised in the next version
 Comments 2: Just as you said, the function of CC mode define in 
[CC-CV-RDI] is totally the same as VCCV BFD, so there are two choices for 
MPLS-TP PW.
             (1)VCCV BFD is used for the CC mode, and CC-CV-RDI used for 
the CV mode
             (2)CC-CV-RDI is used for both the CC and CV modes, and VCCV 
BFD is not used.
             For bakward compatibility, choice 1 is the better choice; and 
this will be revised in the next version 
Comments 3: Agree, if VCCV BFD is not used, both CC and CV bits SHOULD be 
defined; if VCCV BFD is used for the CC mode, only CV bit SHOULD be 
defined.

B.R.

Fei

Greg Mirsky <[email-masked]> 
2011-03-18 12:33

收件人
[email-masked], [email-masked], Elisa Bellagamba 
<[email-masked]>, Attila Takacs 
<[email-masked]>, [email-masked], [email-masked], 
[email-masked], pwe3 <[email-masked]>
抄送

主题
Comments on draft-zhang-mpls-tp-pw-oam-config-04

Dear Authors, Editors, and All,
Please kindly find my comments to the document below
Editorial. In Introduction, para 2 's/In contract/In contrast/'
section 4.1 positions proactive CC-CV-RDI as extension of BFD and states 
that BFD should evolve to close gaps existing between if and OAM solutions 
defined in ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi. I don't consider solution described for 
proactive CC/CV/RDI as extension of VCCV BFD, RFC 5885 and I think that 
mechanisms defined for proactive CC/CV/RDI can be applied for SS-PW and 
MS-PW as well as they are applicable to p2p bi-directional LSPs, co-routed 
and associated. If that's the case, then VCCV BFD can be used as defined 
in RFC 5885, without modifications and the ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi will 
address proactive CV gap for PW.
Section 7.1 I'd propose to define 'C' bit to indicate support of CC/CV/RDI 
in addition to bits L, D, and F because support of VCCV BFD not 
necessarily equates to support of ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi.
Regards,
Greg