Subject: [PWE3] Question on draft-boutros-pwe3-mpls-tp-ms-pw-01

From: Greg Mirsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 22:40:23 -0700

Dear Authors,
I have a question on Section 3.1.2.1 when Lock (LI) is sent to S-PE.
According to draft-ietf-mpls-tp-li-lb-01 Lock operates only on MEP, i.e. it
originated by MEP and addressed to MEP. In scenario considered in 3.1.2.1 LI
addressed and processed by S-PE which is a MIP, not MEP. I believe that if
Loopback to be performed on MS-PW the LI request must be send to remote
T-PE. LB then might be set on S-PE or remote T-PE if LI was successful.
And I think that referring to nodes as T-PE and S-PE when LI-LB performed on
MPLS-TP LSP is confusing. To address PE a PW label must be present which is
not the case if scope of LI-LB is the LSP.

Regards,
Greg

---

From: Sami Boutros <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 12:26:21 -0700

Hi Greg,

At 10:40 PM 5/18/2011, Greg Mirsky wrote:
>According to draft-ietf-mpls-tp-li-lb-01 Lock operates only on MEP, 
>i.e. it originated by MEP and addressed to MEP. In scenario 
>considered in 3.1.2.1 LI addressed and processed by S-PE which is a 
>MIP, not MEP. I believe that if Loopback to be performed on MS-PW 
>the LI request must be send to remote T-PE. LB then might be set on 
>S-PE or remote T-PE if LI was successful.

Sami: Correct. We need to update this section, agreed the LI can't be 
intercepted at S-PE, and hence the S-PE wouldn't need to send any 
PW-status for the LI on a PW.

>And I think that referring to nodes as T-PE and S-PE when LI-LB 
>performed on MPLS-TP LSP is confusing. To address PE a PW label must 
>be present which is not the case if scope of LI-LB is the LSP.

Sami: Sure, will update the text to use MEP/MIP to refer to nodes for LI-LB.

Thanks,

Sami