The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2004-Mar> msg00041



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]  
  [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index]

WG last call for draft-ietf-mpls-oam-requirements-02.txt

  • From: "Thomas D. Nadeau" <tnadeau@cisco.com>
  • Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 10:26:15 -0500
  • Importance: Normal

Title: Message
 
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-mpls@UU.NET [mailto:owner-mpls@UU.NET] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 11:40 PM
To: MPLS wg; S.Matsushima
Subject: Re: WG last call for draft-ietf-mpls-oam-requirements-02.txt

Thank you,
 
Your email clarifies the points well.
 
>   A--B
>       \         |--H
>        E--F--G--|
>       /         |--I
>   C--D
>   
>   Data flows from A and C to H and I. An LDP LSP is provided from B and D to G.
>   
>   1. When you say you want to account traffic
>      through an LSP for each pair of ingress
>      to egress, you mean
>      b. LSP ingress egress pairs
>         {B, G}, {C, G}
>
>   2. At which LSRs do you want to be able
>      to perform this accounting?
>      a. Ingresses B and D
>      b. Egress G
>      c. Merge point E
>      d. Transit point F
>
> Possibly all of these.
> Where it is performed is where SP wants to perform it.
 
This is what I would expect as SP requirements.
 
> B and D should perform this accounting naturally, also E (maybe it depend implementation) too.
> In this case, what this requirement is that F and G needs something to know which ingress the data
> came from.
Agreed. And it is this requirement that I was trying to expose and make clear.
 
I would appreciate it if this point could be made abundantly clear in the draft as I do not believe it is currently understood by everyone. There are obviously significant implications for the operation of a router, and possibly for the way in which packets are labelled.
 
Thanks,
Adrian 
 
    We will try to make this clear when we do the updates
from LC comments.
 
    --Tom