Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-theimer-mpls-oam-requ-00.txt

From: Theimer Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 18:17:00 +0200

Tom,

the intent is to clarify if the existing mechanisms and MIBs are sufficient
to cover all the requirements, and if not, what needs to be added.
Currently, the MPLS control plane provides some fault management support,
and of course there are counters for tunnel throughput verification.
However, there are no inband path monitoring mechanisms, such as loopbacks
or continuity checks. LSP failure notifications are limited and protocol
specific. It is also very hard to verify if an LSP meets a service level
agreement end-end, not just at the ingress or egress node. There is no
standard way to trace the path of an LSP, etc.

Most of these things can probably be added easily, some of them may be a bit
harder to provide. However, I would like to avoid discussing about the
technical details, and focus on the requirements first. If we find that all
requirements can be met with existing MPLS standards, that's fine.

Thomas
> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Thomas D. Nadeau [SMTP:[email-masked]]
> Sent:	Monday, October 25, 1999 2:46 PM
> To:	Theimer Thomas; 'MPLS Mailing List'
> Subject:	Re: I-D ACTION:draft-theimer-mpls-oam-requ-00.txt
> 
> 
>          Hi,
> 
>          Please forgive me if I am confused, but aren't just about all of 
> the requirements
> described in your document already covered by the current MPLS MIBs? Your 
> document
> discusses such things as alarm notifications for paths going up/down, 
> counting bytes in/out,
> etc... for tunnel throughput verification. All of these things are
> included 
> in the current MPLS
> MIBs. A few things are not, but can easily be included.
> 
>          Is it your intent to augment these MIBs, or provide some sort of 
> additional functionality in
> addition to the standard SNMP mechanism to manage MPLS?
> 
>          --Tom