Subject: [mpls] working group last call

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 11:40:44 +0100

Working Group,

this is to start a two week Working Group last call on
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-use-cases-and-design.

This is the second time we working group last call this
draft, it has been updated after comments during the
ADE-review. The changes are such that we have decided to
do a full two week wglc.

Please send your comments to the mpls working group
mailing list ([email-masked]).

Please send both technical comments, and if you are happy
with the document as is also indications of support.

There are no IPR claims against this draft.

All the co-authors has stated that they are not aware
of any IPRs.

This working group last call will end on January 25, 2013.

/Loa
for the wg co-chairs

-- 

Loa Andersson                         email: [email-masked]
Sr Strategy and Standards Manager            [email-masked]
Ericsson Inc                          phone: +46 10 717 52 13
                                             +46 767 72 92 13

---

From: Lucy yong <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 20:20:21 +0000

I support this.

The document is well and clearly written. One comment: in section 3.3.1, it is better to give some recommendation or options regarding how to provide timing to BTS. This is important for 2G/3G backhaul.

Cheers,
Lucy 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> [email-masked]
> Sent: Monday, January 14, 2013 4:41 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; draft-ietf-mpls-tp-use-cases-and-
> [email-masked]
> Subject: [mpls] working group last call
> 
> Working Group,
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:19:24 +0100

This draft has very useful use cases and is ready for forwarding to the
IESG.

---

From: "Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:34:19 +0100

+1
 
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
ext Andrew G. Malis
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 1:19 PM
To: Loa Andersson
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Subject: Re: [mpls] working group last call

/Loa
for the wg co-chairs

--

Loa Andersson                         email: [email-masked]
Sr Strategy and Standards Manager            [email-masked]
Ericsson Inc                          phone: +46 10 717 52 13
<tel:%2B46%2010%20717%2052%2013> 
                                             +46 767 72 92 13
<tel:%2B46%20767%2072%2092%2013>

---

From: "Shah, Himanshu" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 09:15:57 -0500

No brainer. Absolutely support it.
/himanshu

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of [email-masked]
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2013 5:41 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: [mpls] working group last call

Working Group,

this is to start a two week Working Group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-use-cases-and-design.

This is the second time we working group last call this draft, it has been updated after comments during the ADE-review. The changes are such that we have decided to do a full two week wglc.

Please send your comments to the mpls working group mailing list ([email-masked]).

Please send both technical comments, and if you are happy with the document as is also indications of support.

All the co-authors has stated that they are not aware of any IPRs.

/Loa
for the wg co-chairs

--

---

From: Ping Pan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 14:22:22 +0000

+1

On Jan 16, 2013, at 3:20 AM, "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

This draft has very useful use cases and is ready for forwarding to the IESG.

On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:40 AM, <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
Working Group,

Please send your comments to the mpls working group
mailing list ([email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>).

/Loa
for the wg co-chairs

--

Loa Andersson                         email: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
Sr Strategy and Standards Manager            [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
Ericsson Inc                          phone: +46 10 717 52 13<tel:%2B46%2010%20717%2052%2013>
                                             +46 767 72 92 13<tel:%2B46%20767%2072%2092%2013>

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

---

From: Huub van Helvoort <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:39:16 +0100

Editors,

You need to fix the acronym expansion for MEP and MIP:

MEP   Maintenance Entity Group End Point
MIP   Maintenance Entity Group Intermediate Point

Regards, Huub.

======

---

From: Jeff Tantsura <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:39:19 +0000

Very useful document, support

Cheers,
Jeff

/Loa
for the wg co-chairs

--

---

From: Pablo Frank <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 10:07:06 -0500

Very useful doc.
Support.

P

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 16:53:29 -0000

Hi,

Just to short-cut things a bit: I sent the document back to the working group
when it was last presented for publication; this version addresses my concerns,
although Huub points out an important error in the expansions of MIP and MEP.

Thanks,
Adrian

> Sent: 14 January 2013 10:41
> To: [email-masked]

---

From: t.petch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 20:58:31 +0000

----- Original Message -----
From: "Huub van Helvoort" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 2:39 PM

> MIP   Maintenance Entity Group Intermediate Point

and, at the same time, that other hoary old chestnut
OAM  Operations, Administration and Maintenance

On a slightly different tack, if Security Considerations calls out
[RFC5920] as
Normative (rightly so, IMO), then I think that  [MPLS-TP Sec FW]  must
also
be Normative.

And, while I am on, there are still a fair number of places where the
English
reads oddly.  My sense was that Adrian, in August, provided a list of
some of the
instances where he saw that corrections would be beneficial but I think
that
his list was never meant to be inclusive.

For example, to take a paragraph at random, there is currently

OLD
   Some operators are using the similar model as in 2G and 3G Mobile
   Backhaul, which uses IP/MPLS in the core, and MPLS-TP with static
   provisioning through NMS in aggregation and access. The reasoning is
   the following: X2 traffic load in LTE network is currently a very
   small percentage, e.g., some large mobile operator observed less than
   one percent of total S1 traffic. Therefore, optimizing X2 traffic is
   not the design objective, X2 traffic can be carried through the same
   static tunnels together with S1 traffic in the aggregation and access
   networks, and further forwarded accross IP/MPLS core. In addition,
   Mesh protection may be more efficient in regard of bandwidth
   utilization, but linear protection and ring protection are considered
   simpler by some operators from operation maintenance and trouble
   shooting point of view, therefore widely deployed. In general, using
   MPLS-TP with NMS model for LTE backhaul is a viable approach. The
   design objective of using this approach is to keep the operation
   simple and with unified model for mobile backhaul.

which, editing just the English and not the meaning, might produce,
with an asterisk(*) indicating a change

NEW
   Some operators are using the *same model as in 2G and 3G Mobile
   Backhaul, which uses IP/MPLS in the core, and MPLS-TP with static
   provisioning *(through NMS*)  in aggregation and access. The
reasoning is
   *as follows: *the X2 traffic load in LTE *networks is currently a
very
   small percentage, e.g., some large mobile *operators *observe less
than
   one percent of total S1 traffic. Therefore, optimizing X2 traffic is
   not *a design objective*, X2 traffic can be carried through the same
   static tunnels *as S1 traffic in the aggregation and access
   networks, and forwarded *across *the IP/MPLS core. In
addition,
   Mesh protection may be more efficient *with regard *to bandwidth
   utilization, but linear protection and ring protection are considered
   simpler by some operators from the *point of view of operation*,
maintenance and trouble
   shooting *and so are widely deployed. In general, using
   MPLS-TP with *static provisioning *(through NMS) for LTE backhaul is
a viable approach. The
   design objective of using this approach is to keep the operation
   simple and *use a *common model for mobile backhaul.

Um; quite a few changes (or we could leave it to the RFC Editor).

Tom Petch

---

From: "Luyuan Fang (lufang)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 23:03:11 +0000

Huub,

Thank you for picking this up.
We will fix the the acronym expansion for MEP and MIP as you correctly
pointed out in the re-spin of the draft when the WG last call has ended.

Luyuan

-----Original Message-----
From: Huub van Helvoort <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 6:39 AM
To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]"
<[email-masked]>,
"[email-masked]"
<[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [mpls] working group last call

---

From: Masahiro DAIKOKU <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 15:28:41 +0900

Support

---

From: "Luyuan Fang (lufang)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 17:29:09 +0000

Hi Tom,

Thank you for your review, comments, and suggestions.

Please see in-line.

-----Original Message-----
From: "t.petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thursday, January 17, 2013 12:58 PM
To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]"

>OAM  Operations, Administration and Maintenance

[luyuan] Yes, good point, will use the suggested text.

>Normative (rightly so, IMO), then I think that  [MPLS-TP Sec FW]  must

[luyuan] I'm OK with that, will check with Adrian and Loa too.

>his list was never meant to be inclusive.

[luyuan] We actually made major effort in 03 to improve the 'entire'
document 
after Adrian made his comments on 02 version. You can check the diff
between 03 and 02.

>For example, to take a paragraph at random, there is currently

[luyuan] This paragraph was added in 05 just before the last call based on
an operator's input.
We can improve the text per your comments.

>Um; quite a few changes (or we could leave it to the RFC Editor).

[luyuan] Thanks for your detailed suggestions and your discussion with me.
Below is the proposed new text, which you are OK with.

Some operators are using the same model as in 2G and 3G Mobile
   Backhaul, which uses IP/MPLS in the core, and MPLS-TP with static
   provisioning (through NMS) in aggregation and access. The reasoning is
   as follows: the X2 traffic load in LTE networks currently may be a very
   small percentage of the total traffic, e.g., a large mobile operator
observed the X2 traffic was less than one percent of the total S1 traffic.
Therefore, optimizing the X2 traffic may not the design objective in this
case, 
The X2 traffic can be carried through the same static tunnels together with
the S1 traffic in the aggregation and access networks, and further
forwarded 
across the IP/MPLS core. In addition, mesh protection may be more
efficient with
regard to bandwidth utilization, but linear protection and ring protection
are 
often considered simpler by some operators from the point of view of
operation
maintenance and trouble shooting, and so are widely deployed. In general,
using MPLS-TP with static provisioning for LTE backhaul is a viable option.
The design objective of using this approach is to keep the operation
simple and 
use a common model for mobile backhaul, especially during the transition
period.

Thanks,
Luyuan

---

From: "Luyuan Fang (lufang)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:40:26 +0000

Lucy,

Thanks for your support and comment.
 
Here is our update to address your comment on timing.

===
In 3.3.1 we already state:

"The deterministic nature of MPLS-TP LSP set up can also support packet
based synchronization to maintain predictable performance regarding
packet delay and jitters."

We now expand this to:

"The traffic engineered and co-routed bidirectional properties of an
MPLS-TP LSP are of benefit in transporting packet based time and
frequency synchronization (TFS) protocols such as
[draft-ietf-tictoc-1588overmpls]. However the choice between an
external, physical layer or packet based TFS method is
network dependent and thus is out of scope of this document."

====

Add the following at the end of section 3.3.2:

The TFS considerations stated in Section 3.3.1 apply to the
4G/LTE Mobile Backhaul case.

====
Add Informative reference:
[draft-ietf-tictoc-1588overmpls]

====

The new text was generated for us by one of the ADs with lots of
experience with timing, so we are happy that it is right.

We'll acknowledge all folks commented and contributed to the draft.

Thanks,
Luyuan

-----Original Message-----
From: Lucy yong <[email-masked]>
Date: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 12:20 PM
To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
"[email-masked]"
<[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [mpls] working group last call
Resent-From: <[email-masked]>
Resent-To: Luyuan Fang <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, Nabil
Bitar <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>,
<[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>,
<[email-masked]>
Resent-Date: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 12:20 PM

>I support this.
>
>The document is well and clearly written. One comment: in section 3.3.1,
>it is better to give some recommendation or options regarding how to
>provide timing to BTS. This is important for 2G/3G backhaul.
>
>Cheers,
>Lucy 
>

---

From: Lucy yong <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 21:37:29 +0000

I am glad to see these additions. Text is fine to me.
Thanks,
Lucy

> Luyuan Fang (lufang)
> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 9:40 AM
> To: Lucy yong; [email-masked]; [email-masked]

---

From: "Luyuan Fang (lufang)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 21:45:22 +0000

Thanks, Lucy.
The text is in the new version now. We'll post it once the last call has
ended.

Luyuan

-----Original Message-----
From: Lucy yong <[email-masked]>
Date: Thursday, January 24, 2013 1:37 PM
To: Luyuan Fang <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
"[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 10:30:55 +0100

Working Group,

The wglc on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-use-cases-and-design has ended,
and there were comments and the authors has promised to upload
a new version.

After seeing the new version, checking the shepherd write-up and
fixing what needs to be fixed in the write-up I will ask our AD
to resume the IESG review of the draft.

/Loa
for the working group co-chairs

-- 

Loa Andersson                        email: [email-masked]
MPLS Expert                                 [email-masked]
Huawei Technologies (consult)        phone: +46 739 81 21 64

---

From: Curtis Villamizar <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 13:07:30 -0500

Loa,

Sorry to weigh in this so late in the process, a day after the wglc
ended, but I see an issue.

First let me say that overall this is a document that deserves to be
advanced, but...

The entirety of section 4.7 is:

  4.7. MPLS-TP and IP/MPLS Interworking considerations  

   Since IP/MPLS is largely deployed in most SPs' networks, MPLS-TP
   and IP/MPLS interworking is a reality.

   The interworking issues are addressed in a separate document
   [Interworking].

The reference is to an expired individual submission that has received
little or no attention on the MPLS WG mailing list.  My search of my
local mpls mailing list folder turned up zero messages containing the
string "draft-martinotti-mpls-tp-interworking" or title substring
"Interworking between MPLS".  I also search subject lines in the
official MPLS WG archive and found no reference to the document name
or title substring "Interworking between MPLS" going back as far as
2008 (when the 00 version appeared).

Perhaps this section and the reference should be removed.  Either that
or change it to the following.

  4.7. MPLS-TP and IP/MPLS Interworking considerations  

   Since IP/MPLS is largely deployed in most SPs' networks, MPLS-TP
   and IP/MPLS interworking is <see below>.

   This topic requires further study and is out of scope for this
   document.

The authors should also consider replacing "a reality" (the current
substitution for <see below> above) with "inevitable if not a reality"
unless there are existing deploymenet which either either layers MPLS
and MPLS-TP or stitch them.  AFAIK both layering and stitching have
been discussed, but only ships-in-the-night deployment (control plane
for MPLS only, none for TP) or co-deployment (common control plane) of
MPLS and MPLS-TP (in only metro networks) is today a reality.  If I'm
wrong about that, then keep the "is a reality" sentence as-is.

I do think that at the very least the referenced should be removed as
any work in MPLS on this topic may or may not be based on the
referenced document.

Again, I appologize for commenting after close of wglc, but I didn't
notice this until looking through the references section and following
the HTML links in the HTML version of the references section.

Curtis

In message <[email-masked]>

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 11:21:45 +0100

Curtis,

Yes it is a bit inconvenient to have wglc comments coming in
late. On the other hand it is better to have them now than during
the IETF Last call or the IESG review.

I'd like the authors to comment on this.

My own take would be the change the second paragraph in section 4.7.
and make it say:

    Interworking is not within the scope of this document, but is for
    further study.

/Loa

--

---

From: "Luyuan Fang (lufang)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 16:11:20 +0000

Curtis and Loa,

Thank you for your comments. I am fine to close this now.

Here is the brief background on this. We presented the tp-use-case as an
individual draft in IETF 80, the slides included a few inter-working
scenarios, we asked for WG feedback. Later
draft-martinotti-mpls-tp-interworking was resumed, and the draft had
extensive discussion on inter-working. WG asked us to work together to
align the effort. The two teams met and agreed that
draft-martinotti-mpls-tp-interworking would cover all interworking
discussion, and the use-case draft would include a pointer to the
interworking draft.

I had in mind to check with the interworking draft authors later to see if
they would have new update or we would remove the pointer.

As this is raised now, I'm OK to close it.
We are going to remove the reference, and remove section 4.7, as it is no
longer providing the information as agreed/intended previously.

Thanks,
Luyuan

-----Original Message-----
From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sunday, January 27, 2013 2:21 AM
To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]"
(draft-ietf-mpls-tp-use-cases-and-design)
Resent-Date: Sunday, January 27, 2013 2:21 AM

---

From: "Luyuan Fang (lufang)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 18:34:48 +0000

Synched with loa.

Here is the new text for 4.7.

Since IP/MPLS is largely deployed in most SPs' networks, MPLS-TP and
IP/MPLS Interworking is inevitable if not a reality. However, Interworking
discussion is out of the scope of this document, it is for further study.

Thanks,
Luyuan

---

From: "Luyuan Fang (lufang)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 19:46:40 +0000

Loa and all,

New version of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-use-cases-and-design is posted.

We addressed all on-line and off-line comments from Lucy, Pablo, Huub,
Tom, Curtis, and Loa, and acknowledged the folks in the document.

Thanks,
Luyuan

-----Original Message-----
From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Saturday, January 26, 2013 1:30 AM
To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[email-masked]"
<[email-masked]>,
"[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
"[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: working group last call
Resent-From: <[email-masked]>
Resent-To: Luyuan Fang <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, Nabil
Bitar <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>,
<[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>,
<[email-masked]>
Resent-Date: Saturday, January 26, 2013 1:30 AM