Subject: Re: [Mpls-interop] On Req.41

From: "Malcolm Betts" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 08:41:27 -0400

The comment from Adrian raises an interesting point:

Should data plane OAM triggers (e.g. loss of CC, server AIS etc) be
described as a part of the data plane, as implied by Adrian's comment
and draft sprecher:

Or in the OAM draft, as implied by Ben's comment.

I have a slight preference to describing them as part of the data plane
OAM, key point is that we need to be consistent. 

Malcolm Betts
Nortel Networks
Phone: +1 613 763 7860 (ESN 393)
email: [email-masked]

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 6:27 PM
To: Ben Niven-Jenkins; Annamaria Fulignoli; Malis, Andrew G. (Andy)
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Mpls-interop] On Req.41

Hi,

> I would argue protection triggers are likely to be either control 
> plane driven (we have that covered), management plane driven (Eric's 
> draft) or OAM driven (Martin's) draft.

Or, locally, data plane driven.

Please see draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-survive-fwk-01.txt for more details on
protection triggers.

Adrian 

_______________________________________________
Mpls-interop mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-interop

---

From: David Ward <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 20:19:14 -0500

Malcolm -

OAM as we are inventing is a "control plane" that is in-band with the  
"data plane." We know that OAM triggers data plane, control plane and  
management plane actions. Given this, we should discuss and reference  
OAM functions, states, triggers and actions as appropriate. The  
dependencies are what is critical We may be in a tomato/tomatoe  
situation.

-DWard