Subject: [mpls-tp] comments on draft-boutros-pwe3-ms-pw-tp-00

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2010 10:48:45 +0800

Hi authors

I have some comments on the draft.

It states in 3.1.1.1 that
‘Assume that T-PE1 originates LI request for the MPLS-TP LSP carrying 
PW1. The intended recipient of the message can be either S-PE or T-PE2.’
IMO, MEP at T-PE1 and MEP at T-PE2 belong two different LSPs, so these two 
MEP are not in the same MEG, so it is impossible for a MEP to send a OAM 
packet to a MEP which is not in the same MEG.

It states in 3.1.2.1
‘In our example, let’s assume that, T-PE1 sends an LI request message to 
lock PW1. If S-PE is the intended recipient (based on the TTL value of the 
PW label) and if it is able to lock PW1’

IMO, S-PE is a MIP for E2E monitor, I am wandering if it is necessary to 
lock a MIP?
Or S-PE is a MEP for TCM monitor, if so, according [OAM framework], TCM 
should realize by using PST, not using TTL. 
I think the key question is a SS-PW in a MS-PW is an individual PW or is 
just a portion of the MS-PW.

Regards,
Suhui.

--------------------------------------------------------
ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail is solely property of the sender's organization. This mail communication is confidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy and are not permitted to disclose the contents of this communication to others.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender.
This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam system.