Subject: [mpls-tp] Comments on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-framework-06.

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 15:01:24 +0800

Hi authors，
Here are my comments on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-framework-06.

“4.1.2  If a MEP detects a period misconfiguration defect , it declares a 
signal fail condition at the transport path level.”
In my opinion, unexpected period is a minor defect and it doesn’t affect 
the client traffic, but signal fail means the transport path is broken, it 
will trig protection action and insertion of FDI packet. I wonder if it is 
appropriate that unexpected period causes signal fail condition.

“5.2 A MEP that receives the packets with the RDI information should 
determine that its peer MEP has encountered a defect condition associated 
with a signal fail.”
Suggest to change to 
“A MEP that receives the packets with the correct globally unique Source 
MEP identifier and the RDI information should determine that its peer MEP 
has encountered a defect condition associated with a signal fail.”

“5.4 When a server MEP is locked or receives a lock report, the MPLS-TP 
client (sub-)layer adaptation function generates packets with LKR 
information in both directions to allow the suppression of secondary 
alarms at the MEPs in the client (sub-)layer.”
Are LKR packets in both direction inserted in client layer? I think the 
sink MEP should insert the LKR packets in client layer, but source MEP 
should not.

“5.6.1 DM OAM packets should be transmitted with the PHB that yields the 
lowest packet delay   performance among the PHB Scheduling Classes or 
Ordering  Aggregates (see RFC 3260 [12]) in the monitored transport path 
for the relevant network domain(s).”
Why should the PHB of DM OAM packets be highest priority? I think 
operators may want to measure the delay of packets with different PHB.

I think following issues need to be clarified:
When a MEP receives a LKR packet, if it enters SF condition, if it blocks 
client traffic?
When a MEP receives a AIS packet, if it enters SF condition, if it blocks 
client traffic?

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.