The MPLS WG Archive

[Shahram Davari <Shahram_Davari@pmc-sierra.com>]

Deciding to run CV on LSPs is also left to the operators. But 1 CV/s is 
for interoperability and consistent availability measurements across
SPs, which off course you don't care about.

-Shahram

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas D. Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@cisco.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 11:23 AM
> To: Shahram Davari
> Cc: 'George Swallow'; 'mpls@uu.net'
> Subject: RE: Y.1711 requirements from IETF 
> 
> 
> 
>          That is up to the operator to configure. I am not in the
> business of telling operators how to run their networks. I
> just provide the tools and some suggestions.
> 
>          --Tom
> 
> >Sure, but then what is your fault detection time scale, and 
> how do you 
> >measure availability SLA?
> >
> >-Shahram
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Thomas D. Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@cisco.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 11:17 AM
> > > To: Shahram Davari
> > > Cc: 'George Swallow'; 'mpls@uu.net'
> > > Subject: RE: Y.1711 requirements from IETF
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >          Well, you MAY LSP ping all of those FECs if you 
> wish and at
> > > whatever rate you (i.e.: an operator) feels comfortable 
> with. No one
> > > is "strongly suggesting" that you do so at 1 packet per second.
> > >
> > >          --Tom
> > >
> > >
> > > >But the same is true for MPLS-ping. You also need to ping
> > > all those FECs.
> > > >
> > > >-Shahram
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: George Swallow [mailto:swallow@cisco.com]
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 5:59 PM
> > > > > To: Shahram Davari
> > > > > Cc: 'Thomas D. Nadeau'; 'mpls@uu.net'; swallow@cisco.com
> > > > > Subject: Re: Y.1711 requirements from IETF
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Where did you get this " ALL LSPs MUST" statement from? May
> > > > > be you are
> > > > > > reading a different Y.1711 than I have. All I can find are
> > > > > the following
> > > > > > statement:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > " ... It is strongly recommended that CV OAM packets be
> > > > > generated on all LSPs
> > > > > > (in order to detect all defects and potentially provide
> > > > > protection against
> > > > > > traffic leakage both in and out of LSPs). "
> > > > >
> > > > > I have one customer providing an IP VPN service who 
> has >1500 PE
> > > > > routers and probably well over a million LSPs.  Most 
> of the LSPs
> > > > > represent VPN connectivity can carry very little traffic.
> > > > >
> > > > > Would you "strongly recommend" that CV OAM packets be
> > > generated on all
> > > > > their LSPs at a rate of 1 per second?  Can you point to *any*
> > > > > currently deployed network other than those using 
> MPLS solely for
> > > > > traffic engineering where this would be a good idea?  If
> > > I'm carrying
> > > > > the full internet routing table and using LDP downstream
> > > unsolicited
> > > > > should every router generate 108,000 (the current number
> > > of routes) CV
> > > > > OAM packets per second?
> > > > >
> > > > > Perhaps you should revisit this "strongly recommended"
> > > > > recommendation.  Perhaps you should provide for
> > > generation of CV OAM
> > > > > packets at rates other than 1  second.
> > > > >
> > > > > ...George
> > > > >
> > > > > 
> ==================================================================
> > > > > George Swallow       Cisco Systems                  
> (978) 497-8143
> > > > >                      250 Apollo Drive
> > > > >                      Chelmsford, Ma 01824
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > > ----------
> > > Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
> > >
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time. 
>