Subject: [mpls-tp] FW: New Version Notification for draft-gray-mpls-tp-nm-req-03

From: "Eric Gray" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 08:02:15 -0600

A new version of this draft has been posted, based on comments 
received and an editing session last month in Ipswich, UK.

As discussed at the Ipswich meeting, we would now like to ask
the WG Chairs, and the WG, to adopt this version as a working
group docment.

Thanks in advance...

-----Original Message-----
From: IETF I-D Submission Tool [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 8:51 AM
To: Eric Gray
Cc: Scott Mansfield; [email-masked]
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-gray-mpls-tp-nm-req-03 
Importance: High

A new version of I-D, draft-gray-mpls-tp-nm-req-03.txt has been
successfuly submitted by Eric Gray and posted to the IETF repository.

Filename:	 draft-gray-mpls-tp-nm-req
Revision:	 03
Title:		 MPLS TP Network Management Requirements
Creation_date:	 2009-02-04
WG ID:		 Independent Submission
Number_of_pages: 20

Abstract:
This document specifies the requirements necessary to manage the 

  elements and networks that support an MPLS Transport Profile 

  (MPLS-TP). This document is a product of a joint International 

  Telecommunications Union - Telecommunications Standardization 

  Sector (ITU-T) and Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) effort 

  to include a MPLS Transport Profile within the IETF MPLS 

  architecture. The requirements are driven by the management 

  functionality needs defined by ITU-T for packet transport 

  networks. 

  Gray, et al

  Expires August, 2009

  [page 1] 

  Internet-Draft

MPLS-TP NM Requirements

 February, 2009

The IETF Secretariat.

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 16:17:46 +0100

All,

as you can see below the authors of draft-gray-mpls-tp-nm-req-03
has request that we accept the draft as a working group draft.

This is to initiate a two week poll if we want to accept it as
a working group document.

Please send your comments to the mpls-tp list.

/Loa

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

-- 

Loa Andersson

Sr Strategy and Standards Manager
Ericsson ///                          phone:  +46 8 632 77 14

                                       email:  [email-masked]
                                               [email-masked]
                                               [email-masked]

---

From: "Diego Caviglia" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 16:24:41 +0100

Yes.

BR

D

________________________________

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Loa Andersson
> Sent: venerdì 6 febbraio 2009 16.18
> To: Eric Gray
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; mpls-
> [email-masked]
> Subject: [mpls] Poll for draft-gray-mpls-tp-nm-req-03 to become an mpls
> wgdocument
> 
> All,
> 
> mpls mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

---

From: "Annamaria Fulignoli" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 17:11:30 +0100

I Support

BR
Annamaria 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Loa Andersson
Sent: venerdì 6 febbraio 2009 16.18
To: Eric Gray
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: [Mpls-interop] Poll for draft-gray-mpls-tp-nm-req-03 to become anmpls wg document

All,

as you can see below the authors of draft-gray-mpls-tp-nm-req-03 has request that we accept the draft as a working group draft.

This is to initiate a two week poll if we want to accept it as a working group document.

/Loa

Eric Gray wrote:
> As discussed at the Ipswich meeting, we would now like to ask the WG 
> Chairs, and the WG, to adopt this version as a working group docment.
> 
> Thanks in advance...
> 

-- 

Loa Andersson

---

From: Vishwas Manral <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 08:29:00 -0800

Yes - most of my comments have now been taken care. Support.

Thanks,
Vishwas

On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 7:17 AM, Loa Andersson <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> A new version of this draft has been posted, based on comments received
>> and an editing session last month in Ipswich, UK.
>>
>> From: IETF I-D Submission Tool [mailto:[email-masked]] Sent:
>> Friday, February 06, 2009 8:51 AM
>> To: Eric Gray

---

From: Ben Niven-Jenkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 17:00:05 +0000

Support. Ben

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 21:13:18 -0000

Yes, this is ready.

Some more work before last call :-)

A
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Loa Andersson" <[email-masked]>
To: "Eric Gray" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; 
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 3:17 PM
Subject: [Mpls-interop] Poll for draft-gray-mpls-tp-nm-req-03 to become 
anmpls wg document

>> This document specifies the requirements necessary to manage the elements 
>> and networks that support an MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP). This 
>> document is a product of a joint International Telecommunications Union - 
>> Telecommunications Standardization Sector (ITU-T) and Internet 
>> Engineering Task Force (IETF) effort to include a MPLS Transport Profile 
>> within the IETF MPLS architecture. The requirements are driven by the 
>> management functionality needs defined by ITU-T for packet transport 
>> networks. Gray, et al
>>
>>
>>
>>   Expires August, 2009
>>
>>
>>
>>   [page 1] Internet-Draft
>>
>>
>> MPLS-TP NM Requirements
>>
>>  February, 2009
>>  The IETF Secretariat.
>>
>>

---

From: "Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2009 18:48:58 +0100

Support

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of ext Loa Andersson
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 17:18
To: Eric Gray
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Subject: [Mpls-interop] Poll for draft-gray-mpls-tp-nm-req-03 to become
anmpls wg document

All,

/Loa

-- 

Loa Andersson

                                       email:
[email-masked]
                                               [email-masked]
                                               [email-masked]

---

From: Huub van Helvoort <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2009 19:03:12 +0100

Hej Loa,

> has request that we accept the draft as a working group draft.

Support.

Cheers, Huub.

-- 
================================================================
Always remember that you are unique...just like everyone else...

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2009 13:21:48 -0500

Support.

---

From: "Daniele Ceccarelli" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 10:23:13 +0100

I support the ID to be accepted as WG.

Best regards,
Daniele

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Loa Andersson
Sent: venerdì 6 febbraio 2009 16.18
To: Eric Gray
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: [mpls] Poll for draft-gray-mpls-tp-nm-req-03 to become an mpls wgdocument

All,

/Loa

-- 

Loa Andersson

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 19:15:36 -0000

Support (and read the whole email :-)

Loa, you need to use BLOCK CAPITALS more!

A
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Loa Andersson" <[email-masked]>
To: "Eric Gray" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; 
<[email-masked]>

---

From: Martin Vigoureux <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 02:48:30 +0100

support

---

From: "Weingarten, Yaacov (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 06:55:24 +0100

I support

yaacov weingarten

> ext Loa Andersson
mpls-

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 20:53:01 -0000

Hi Eric,

This is a good document and I support it.  I have few minor comments for
you and your fellow authors to consider please:

1	Section 5.1 says:
 		". Supervision of looping check functions used to detect
loops 
            in the data-plane forwarding path (which result in non-
            delivery of traffic, wasting of forwarding resources and 
            unintended self-replication of traffic);"

Is this meant to imply the reception of too high a number of correct CV
messages in some period T?

2	Ibid: 

          	". Supervision of Alarms based on native OAM, e.g., AIS
(Alarm 
            Indication Signal) and FDI (Forward Defect Indication)"

AIS (all 1s) is required for time-dim co-cs clients but FDI is a
'possible' requirement for co-ps clients......there should be no such
indication sent to cl-ps clients.  Note that IEEE have removed the
AIS/FDI requirement for Ethernet in .1ag, even though ITU have left it
in Y.1731...IMO IEEE have made the right choice here.  The reason I say
'possible' for co-ps clients is that it takes effort to generate FDI in
the co-ps mode (unlike all 1s for the co-cs mode which is a default
condition on failure) and it also means the server layer trail
termination point needs to 'remember' what clients it was serving before
the defect.  But if clients have their own CV flows then this is a much
better approach (Note - co-cs server layer AIS has been used in the past
almost as an excuse not to have a CV flows in a client co-ps layer
network).  I think the case for alarm storms we sometimes hear (and I
have been guilty of this one in the past) is a little over done.

BTW 1 - Do not confuse FDI and BDI.  BDI is much more important and,
most crucially, is at the same layer as the CV OAM flow and the defect
to allow single ended defect monitoring of bidirectionally symmetric p2p
LSPs.  FDI is something injected into the client above the level of the
defect.

BTW 2 - If we keep nested sublayers natively in MPLS-TP (ie S bit issue)
then one needs to be clear about FDI in this case (ie of higher LSP
sublayers) vs real different layer clients.  For those real higher
clients that need AIS/FDI then we will need to generate it, but for
nested LSP sublayers I am not so sure.  On balance I would not do this.

No doubt Maarten will disagree with me about the importance of FDI ;-)

3	And as a general observation on CV flows.  In a co-ps mode layer
network based on label swapping one requires CV flows on all LSP
connections irrespective of importance...else one can't catch cases of
important traffic from one LSP getting unintendedly replicated and
merged into a non-important LSP.  But the CV rate used should be the
same in the whole network.  If it isn't one can get cases of alarm
cycling.  For example a 1/min LSP_A CV flow misconnected into a 1/s
LSP_B CV flow will give rise to (i) mismerge detected at LSP_B trail
termination point at t=X and alarm raised with BDI sent backwards (and
possibly FDI sent forward if used), (ii) at t=X+3 the defect appears to
clear, so alarm, BDI (and any FDI) stopped on LSP_B, (iii) we then get
57 secs of apparent defect-free behaviour but at t=X+60 the alarm cycle
starts again on LSP_B.

4	In section 5.3.2 it says:

	  "Note: An MPLS-TP NE supporting the inter-working of one or
more 
        networking technologies (e.g., Ethernet, SDH/SONET, MPLS) with 
        MPLS-TP needs to translate an MPLS-TP fault into an existing 
        transport technology failure condition for reporting to the 
        management system. 

        See RFC 4377 [2] for more description."

Two points here:

-	Firstly, the 'Note' should strictly refer to a client/server
case and not 'interworking'.  There should be no concept of
peer-interworking of non top-of-stack layer networks, and especially so
if they are different modes.  If we do not clamp down on this it will
lead to unnecessary and wasted effort/cost.

Aside=> MPLS-TP will create a different layer network to MPLS.  This is
just a fact, and nothing to get upset/alarmed about (MPLS is not even
singular as a layer network anyway)....but it is important to understand
*why* this is so....because if we don't, the door will be opened to
peer-interworking with other technologies.

The simple acid test is this:  Does *this* layer network support
message/file/stream application adaptation functions directly?  If the
answer is no then there is no need to either (i) partition this layer
network and create UNI/E-NNIs (are you reading this Andy Malis, because
your MPLSF ICI stuff breaks this rule...but you are not alone, MEF and
OIF are trying to commit the same mistake) or (ii) (even worse) try and
peer-interwork this layer network technology with some other layer
network technology.  Only networks that support message/file/stream
application adaptation functions have a need to create UNIs/E-NNIs and
have horizontal same layer/technology peering relationships between
different parties...like IP in the public Internet for example, as that
is most definitely a top-of-stack network.  The PSTN is the same.  But
none of this applies to any other mode/technology.

-	Secondly, RFC4437 is not bad but it tries to accommodate the
arch violations found in some forms of MPLS that have to be removed in
MPLS-TP, eg LDP merging.  So whilst some of this is relevant, not all of
it is.

5	In section 6.5 we find:

	  "The MPLS-TP NE MUST support the capability to configure the
OAM 
        entities/functions as part of LSP setup, including bidirectional

        point-to-point connections, associated uni-directional point-to-
        point connections, and uni-directional point-to-multipoint 
        connections."

This is correct.  But the key point is that both activation *and
deactivation* of defect detecting/handling OAM needs to be synchronised
to the set-up *and tear-down* of the LSPs.

Note - I am not considering nested TCM OAM sublayers here.  I am only
considering the OAM for the important trail termination points of the
LSP.  If nested TCM OAM sublayering is to be considered then it must be
made clear how the TCM sublayers are activated/deactivated and how any
PM measurements in such are synchronised across LSP failure/restore
events.  Never seen how to do this yet.

regards, Neil

> Sent: 06 February 2009 15:18
> To: Eric Gray
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; 
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> as you can see below the authors of 
> draft-gray-mpls-tp-nm-req-03 has request that we accept the 
> draft as a working group draft.
>

---

From: Dieter Beller <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 17:55:07 +0100

support

Cheers,

Dieter

Loa Andersson wrote:

All,

/Loa

Eric Gray wrote:

A new version of this draft has been posted,
based on comments received and an editing session last month in
Ipswich, UK.

group docment.

Thanks in advance...

-----Original Message-----

To: Eric Gray

Revision:     03

Number_of_pages: 20

Abstract:

networks.

Gray, et al

Expires August, 2009

[page 1]

Internet-Draft

MPLS-TP NM Requirements

February, 2009

The IETF Secretariat.

[email-masked]

--

---

From: "Rolf Winter" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 11:54:29 +0100

Support,

Following are merely suggestions for editorial changes.

Section 2:

Quote:  For the management interface to the management system, an MPLS-
        TP NE is not expected to actively support more than one
        management protocol in any given deployment. The protocol to be
        supported is at the discretion of the operator.

In terms of requirements shouldn't that rather be "...an MPLS-TP NE MAY actively support more than one  management protocol..."

Section 4:

The list seems incomplete to me but the text does not make this clear. Therefore I would suggest to make the following change:

        In order to have the MCN operate properly, a number of
        management functions for the MCN are required <add>including</add>:

Section 5.3.2:

Quote: An MPLS-TP NE MUST provide alarm suppression functionality that
       prevents the generation of a superfluous alarms.

Remove the "a" 

Section 5.3.4:

Quote: The MPLS-TP ME SHOULD
       report local (environmental) alarms

I assume you mean NE above and not ME as e.g. defined in draft-busi-mpls-tp-oam-framework-00

Section 10 not needed I assume.

Hope these are of any help.

Best,

	Rolf

NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL | Registered in England 2832014 

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of Loa Andersson
> Sent: Freitag, 6. Februar 2009 16:18
> To: Eric Gray
> Subject: [mpls-tp] Poll for draft-gray-mpls-tp-nm-req-03 to become an
> mplswg document
> 
> All,
> 
> mpls-tp mailing list
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp