Subject: [mpls] Clarification on TP-Identifiers for MIP

From: "Weingarten, Yaacov (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2011 11:17:52 +0200

Hi,

In reviewing in MPLS-TP Identifiers document it is unclear on the format
that is suggested for MIP identification.  Just for my clarification -
is the intention that the MIP identifier is the same as a MEP identifier
except that in-place of the "MEP_Index" we substitute "Node_ID::IF_Num".
In other words, if we are using ICC-based identifiers the MIP identifier
would be:
MEG_ID::Node_ID::IF_Num and if using IP global identification it would
be LSP_ID::Node_ID::IF_Num.

Is this correct?

Best regards,
Yaacov Weingarten
Nokia Siemens Networks
Industry Environment, PTE
ph#:  +972-9-775 1827
mob#: +972-54-220 0977

---

From: "Ehud Doron" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2011 12:53:38 +0300

Hi,

I am strongly support Yaacov approach. 

Because a MIP is provisioned in the context of a MEG (LSP, PW), it
identifiers are expected to be in the context of this MEG , i.e.
MEG_ID::Node_ID::IF_Num. 

Nevertheless , the MIP identifier as defined in
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers draft is Node_ID::IF_Num (for per IF MIP
approach).

Best wishes, 

Ehud    Doron

System Architect 

Orckit - Corrigent

[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>    

Tel: 972-3-69456327

www.orckit.com <http://www.orckit.com/>  

  <http://www.orckit.com/> 

Pushing technology to the edge

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Weingarten, Yaacov (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 12:18 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [mpls] Clarification on TP-Identifiers for MIP

Hi,

Is this correct?

Best regards,

Yaacov Weingarten

Nokia Siemens Networks

ph#:  +972-9-775 1827

mob#: +972-54-220 0977

---

From: "Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2011 11:57:10 +0200

I do not think Yaacov gave a position here. He just asked a question for
clarification!

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
ext Ehud Doron
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 12:54 PM
To: Weingarten, Yaacov (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon); [email-masked]
Cc: Rafi Ram; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [mpls] Clarification on TP-Identifiers for MIP

Hi,

Best wishes, 

Ehud    Doron

System Architect 

Orckit - Corrigent

Tel: 972-3-69456327

  <http://www.orckit.com/> 

 

Hi,

Is this correct?

Best regards,

Yaacov Weingarten

Nokia Siemens Networks

ph#:  +972-9-775 1827

mob#: +972-54-220 0977

---

From: George Swallow <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 11:14:01 -0400

Ehud -

In an IP/MPLS environment, provisioning MIPs is pretty much a non-starter.
Generally intermediate nodes respond to all requests (e.g. Ping, MPLS Ping)
unless configured to filter on things such a source address.  So I actually
did intended that the MIP-ID to be node:IF_num, with a IF_Num of zero
meaning a MIP not associated with a particular interface.

That said, the MEG can be inferred from the label of the received reply.
This is what happens in e.g. Y.1731 (I refer to Ethernet here), and fault
oam.  In cases where more verification is desired, the MEG-ID is carried in
the contents of the reply.  This is what happens in LSP Ping.

...George

On 5/2/11 5:53 AM, "Ehud Doron" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Because a MIP is provisioned in the context of a MEG (LSP, PW), it identifiers
> are expected to be in the context of this MEG , i.e.  MEG_ID::Node_ID::IF_Num.
> Nevertheless , the MIP identifier as defined in draft-ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers
> draft is Node_ID::IF_Num (for per IF MIP approach).
>  
> Best wishes, 
>  
> Ehud    Doron
> System Architect 
> Orckit - Corrigent
> In reviewing in MPLS-TP Identifiers document it is unclear on the format that
> is suggested for MIP identification.  Just for my clarification  is the
> intention that the MIP identifier is the same as a MEP identifier except that
> in-place of the "MEP_Index" we substitute "Node_ID::IF_Num".  In other words,
> if we are using ICC-based identifiers the MIP identifier would be:
> 
> MEG_ID::Node_ID::IF_Num and if using IP global identification it would be
> LSP_ID::Node_ID::IF_Num.
> 
> Is this correct?
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Yaacov Weingarten
> 
> Nokia Siemens Networks
>