Subject: [mpls] MPLS test session protocol

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 13:42:34 +0000

MPLS Working group,

The authors of draft-frost-mpls-test-session-00 wrote this draft to
provide a simple and general G-ACh protocol for the setup and control of
test traffic streams over MPLS.  Such test streams are required by the
Inferred Loss Measurement (ILM) mode specified in RFC 6374, and are
useful for other purposes.

This draft was presented at IETF 85 and received two comments, from Lou
Berger and Greg Mirsky.  The authors would like to request feedback from
other WG members as to whether this draft should progress in the MPLS
WG.

To summarize the brief IETF 85 discussion, Greg felt the work was
important but proposed using RSVP-TE/LDP for test session signaling.
Lou similarly felt that RSVP-TE should be used in IP environments and
that static NMS control is sufficient for non-IP MPLS-TP networks.

Note that to support Pseudowire we would also need to define and 
implement an LDP signalling solution in addition to the RSVP-TE
solution proposed by Lou. Further note that an LDP only solution
is not an option in MPLS-TP because G-MPLS is the only control
plane available for LSPs.

In the view of the authors, it is important to have good protocol tools
available to support OAM applications over the G-ACh in MPLS-TP networks
with elements that do not necessarily support an IP stack.  We do not
find it convincing that a strictly NMS-based static configuration
approach suffices to meet the needs of all such deployments.

Also, in our view, even some IP network operators may be reluctant to
deploy RSVP-TE between, for example, two adjacent nodes merely to get a
packet loss measurement for a connecting link.

We'd like to hear your views.  Do you think the protocol described in
the draft is a useful addition to the MPLS toolset?

- Stewart & Dan (draft authors)

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 17:36:12 -0000

Hi,

Has anybody raised this work with the IPPM working group to get their take on
it?

Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Stewart Bryant
> Sent: 27 November 2012 13:43
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [mpls] MPLS test session protocol
> 
> MPLS Working group,
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

---

From: Gregory Mirsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 17:39:44 +0000

Hi Adrian,
I thought of parallels with IPPM-Control (OWAMP and TWAMP) protocol. And it is IP PM after all.

	Regards,
		Greg 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 9:36 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [mpls] MPLS test session protocol

Hi,

Has anybody raised this work with the IPPM working group to get their take on it?

Adrian

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf 
> Of Stewart Bryant
> provide a simple and general G-ACh protocol for the setup and control 
> of test traffic streams over MPLS.  Such test streams are required by 
> the Inferred Loss Measurement (ILM) mode specified in RFC 6374, and 
> are useful for other purposes.
> 
> This draft was presented at IETF 85 and received two comments, from 
> Lou Berger and Greg Mirsky.  The authors would like to request 
> feedback from other WG members as to whether this draft should 
> progress in the MPLS WG.
> 
> solution proposed by Lou. Further note that an LDP only solution is 
> not an option in MPLS-TP because G-MPLS is the only control plane 
> available for LSPs.
> 
> In the view of the authors, it is important to have good protocol 
> tools available to support OAM applications over the G-ACh in MPLS-TP 
> networks with elements that do not necessarily support an IP stack.  
> We do not find it convincing that a strictly NMS-based static 
> configuration approach suffices to meet the needs of all such deployments.
> 
> deploy RSVP-TE between, for example, two adjacent nodes merely to get 
> a packet loss measurement for a connecting link.
>

---

From: t.petch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 11:29:36 +0000

----- Original Message -----
From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 5:36 PM
> Has anybody raised this work with the IPPM working group to get their
take on

Back  in January 2012, the Chair of IPPM posted an e-mail 'Wrapping Up',
ie
the WG had done its job and it was time to go and that that was his New
Year resolution.  Although the minutes from Atlanta look healthy, the
List Archive suggests that he had the right idea.

I would suggest not going there.

Tom Petch

> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of
> > This draft was presented at IETF 85 and received two comments, from
Lou
> > In the view of the authors, it is important to have good protocol
tools