The MPLS WG Archive

["Thomas D. Nadeau" <tnadeau@cisco.com>]

On Dec 21, 2004, at 9:02 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:

> Hi Tom,
>
> Thanks for reading!
>
>> I have a comment on draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-sig-requirement-00.txt.
>> The paragraph below seems to on the one hand, have no
>> requirements as is stated in the last paragraph, does
>> give a requirement. I suggest that this document simply
>> refer to draft-ietf-mpls-oam-requirements-05.txt, since the WG
>> agreed to include all MPLS OAM-related requirements in
>> this draft.
>
> This is fine, I think.
>
> Do the WG and the authors of draft-ietf-mpls-oam-requirements-05.txt 
> agree
> to delay that draft while the OAM requirements for P2MP MPLS-TE are
> developed?

	Personally, no, so I suggest that the P2MP Reqs co-authors (and
WG folks) please review the OAM requirements draft ASAP to ensure
that it is not missing anything p2mp-related. *)

> [Note to the readers: This is not just MIB modules or new MIB objects.
> This is the whole OAM structure.]
>
> It seems to me that you would be happy if the very last sentence was
> changed to...
>    These requirements are covered in [MPLS-OAM].
> No other changes to the text would be needed.

	Yes.

	--Tom

>
> Cheers,
> Adrian
>
>> 4.18 P2MP MPLS OAM
>>
>>     Management of P2MP LSPs is as important as the management of P2P
>>     LSPs.
>>
>>     The MPLS and GMPLS MIB modules MUST be enhanced to provide P2MP TE
>>     LSP management.
>>
>>     In order to facilitate correct management, P2MP TE LSPs MUST have
>>     unique identifiers.
>>
>>     OAM facilities will have special demands in P2MP environments
>>     especially within the context of tracing the paths and 
>> connectivity
>>     of P2MP TE LSPs. The precise requirements and mechanisms for OAM 
>> are
>>     out of the scope of this document. It is expected that a separate
>>     document will cover these requirements.
>

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls