The MPLS WG Archive[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index] [mpls] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-sig-requirement-03.txt
Seisho, I have a question on this draft: In section 1 there is the following stated requirement: "A P2MP TE LSP will be protected by fast error recovery mechanisms to minimize disconnection of a P2MP service." Which is obviously sensible, and of course implies that all the defect cases of interest can be detected and the appropriate consequent actions taken. Note this should include defects of this layer network and not just defects that arise in lower layer networks. And remember....the links between nodes in this layer network are provided by (p2p) trails in a lower layer network....and this client/server relationship recurses to the duct. The point I am making here is that IF the lower layer network has decent OAM itself you should get some indication of failure from this, but this is over/above any defects you detect in this layer network either from (i) lower layer defects or (ii) defects arising in this layer network (which of course cannot be detected at all in any lower layer network). Yet it says in section 1.1 that a 'non-objective' is: "OAM for P2MP LSPs" Can someone please explain this apparent contradiction? regards, Neil _______________________________________________ mpls mailing list mpls@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
|
|