The MPLS WG Archive

["David Allan" <dallan@nortelnetworks.com>]

Title: RE: comments on the MPLS OAM discussion

Vach:

Isn't defining OAM messaging for every application of MPLS getting into a bit of a combinatorial problem?

I also got the impression from the presentation in Yokahoma that the HVPLS OAM was more of a discussion of possibilities, and that MAC layer OAM for HVPLS also had desirable properties (I cannot remember what the non-MPLS PW possibilities were which presumably would require a different mechanism...). IMHO there is not sufficient well elucidated demand for a label for HVPLS (or anything else) to impact the meeting consensus on the ITU's request.

BTW The discussion in Yokahoma was based around a concern that the ITU would not repeatedly keep coming back for labels and would make good use of the the one requested. There was also discussion on hoping that proposed use of the label was accompanied by informational drafts etc. such that the MPLS community had the opportunity to comment on how OAM and label use evolved. I think other folks wanting a "piece" of the label only came up briefly and was secondary to the original concern....

cheers
Dave
 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vach Kompella [mailto:vkompella@timetra.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 3:50 PM
> To: Loa Andersson; MPLS wg
> Cc: Scott Bradner; George Swallow
> Subject: RE: comments on the MPLS OAM discussion
>
>
> I'm all in favor of the OAM label, but I share the concern
> that "giving away" a
> label to the ITU isn't the best use of the small reserved
> label space.  I would
> like to see an MPLS OAM label defined.  But the application
> of the label should
> not be restricted to the Y.1711 proposal.  E.g., HVPLS OAM
> proposes to use an
> OAM label.  We'd like to be able to use the MPLS OAM label
> without having to
> exchange OAM FECs as proposed in that draft.
>
> If we allow the use of a single label for all OAM
> applications that want to use
> it, we now have the next issue of how do we demux to the
> different apps that
> want to use this label?
>
> -Vach
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-mpls@UU.NET [mailto:owner-mpls@UU.NET]On Behalf Of Loa
> > Andersson
> > Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 1:31 AM
> > To: MPLS wg
> > Cc: Scott Bradner; George Swallow
> > Subject: comments on the MPLS OAM discussion
> >
> >
> > All,
> >
> > at the meeting of the MPLS wg today at the 54th IETF in Yokohama the
> > MPLS OAM and the liasion from ITU-T SG13/Q3 were revisted.
> There were
> > a very clear consensus in the room supporting the the request in
> > "Use of a reserved label value defined in RFC 3032 for MPLS OAM
> > functions" <draft-ohta-mpls-label-value-01.txt> to assign a label
> > value out of the reserved mpls label value space to support
> MPLS OAM.
> >
> > There were some concerns raised on the "economy of the
> reserved label
> > space", i.e. are we using this label space most effectively
> by accepting
> > the request from ITU-T SG13/Q3. It is the intention of the IESG to
> > address the question of moving the
> <draft-ohta-mpls-label-value-01.txt>
> > to informational on Thursday next, this is to open up the
> mpls mailing
> > list for comments on this topic to support the IESG in
> their decission.
> > Ideally the IESG should be able to take the decission on Thursday,
> > but if we have an active discussion on the list the decission will
> > be taken when the discussion vonverges.
> >
> > /Loa
> >
> > --
> >      Loa Andersson
> >      Chief Architect,
> >      Utfors Research, Architecture and Future Lab (URAX)
> >      Utfors AB
> >      Råsundavägen 12
> >      Box 525, 169 29 Solna
> >      Office          +46 8 5270 2000
> >      Office direct   +46 8 5270 5038
> >      Mobile          +46 70 848 5038
> >      Email           loa.andersson@utfors.se
> >      WWW             www.utfors.se
> >
> >
>
>