From mukund.mani@gmail.com Tue Feb 8 22:27:08 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D8703A6900; Tue, 8 Feb 2011 22:27:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ph8KFKdDfkvv; Tue, 8 Feb 2011 22:27:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B74753A685D; Tue, 8 Feb 2011 22:27:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by wwa36 with SMTP id 36so7110508wwa.13 for ; Tue, 08 Feb 2011 22:27:12 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=K1koCvAC6pCcs7HkSamR/cYuXphtLhm5H2emc8S+4mg=; b=m0OFBCo+US7iJw+tHDFOKsHTmKgetK4LTxtp5+TtigtsIkavvCvooJAGP9TR2FLasI mFwTKlGgI+GrGYlmrKa/yszq0hSMsRb0y+0cS8weG08bdexZF1ear07PeCnJwYXfhPy6 op7DSxdW6G744xUfpqPYT+LXRqc8ChTVk2jiw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=YYFmWRTS6f8GJ9yKy1e2oyfo4DwViEDn7HOQYHGkWOkogF8DEo/0jczSvBEE+nYmdo vMbG203pHuRKoVpRFL4qAG0bpwshYE4YKuJy8mDWdmxLSwN3tuEi/G+VGn1rouf+Bbn1 JnhAsxkpqJ9tGbCNDRT1LK46qqrA5eYcAZOQM= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.227.144.194 with SMTP id a2mr1044014wbv.94.1297232832263; Tue, 08 Feb 2011 22:27:12 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.227.146.76 with HTTP; Tue, 8 Feb 2011 22:27:12 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 11:57:12 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: MPLS-ACH-IP and MPLS-IP encapsulations for BFD in MPLS-TP From: Mukund Mani To: mpls-tp@ietf.org, rtg-bfd@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016368331982877f5049bd38e76 X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 06:27:08 -0000 --0016368331982877f5049bd38e76 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello all Had some questions on the usage of MPLS-ACH-IP and MPLS-IP encapsulations for BFD in MPLS-TP 1. MPLS-IP encapsulation is valid for MPLS-TP when IP addressing is being used= . (i.e in this case ACH will not be used). If we follow the procedures defined in BFD-base drafts or BFD-MPLS, how exactly is it expected to achieve CV (connectivity verification) when ACH is not used in MPLS-TP? Is it acheived using Source IP comparison? ** *Reference: * **=93*draft-ietf-mpls-tp-lsp-ping-bfd-procedures-01=94 mentions the followi= ng in Section 3* ** [RFC5884] describes how BFD can be used for Continuity Check of MPLS LSPs. The procedures described in [RFC5884] MUST be used when IP encapsulation is in use. This section clarifies the usage of BFD in the context of MPLS-TP LSPs when it is not desirable to use IP encapsulation. When using BFD over MPLS-TP LSPs, the BFD discriminator MUST either be signaled via LSP-Ping or be statically configured. The BFD packets MUST be sent over ACH when IP encapsulation is not used. 2. Is the usage of ACH TLV=92s allowed when MPLS-ACH-IP encapsulation is used = in MPLS-TP? Question arises from the fact that to do CV in MPLS-TP, MEP identification (carrying MEP TLV) is required and thus ACH needs to be included even if IP addressing is available. Else there should be a mechanism to do CV with IP (Ref: Question 1) With Regards Mukund --0016368331982877f5049bd38e76 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello all
=A0
=A0
Had some questions on the usage of MPLS-ACH-IP and MPLS-IP=A0encapsula= tions for BFD in MPLS-TP
=A0
1.
=A0
MPLS-= IP encapsulation is valid for MPLS-TP when IP addressing is being used.
(i.e = in this case ACH will not be used).=A0=A0If we follow the procedures defined i= n BFD-base
draft= s or BFD-MPLS, how exactly is it expected to achieve CV (connectivity verif= ication)
when = ACH is not used in MPLS-TP? Is it acheived using Source IP comparison?
Reference: =
=93draft-ietf-mpls-tp-lsp-ping-bfd-procedures-01=94 mentions t= he following in Section 3

=A0=A0 [RFC5884] desc= ribes how BFD can be used for Continuity Check of MPLS

=A0=A0 LSPs.=A0 The p= rocedures described in [RFC5884] MUST be used when IP

=A0=A0 encapsulation = is in use.=A0 This section clarifies the usage of BFD in

=A0=A0 the context of= MPLS-TP LSPs when it is not desirable to use IP

=A0=A0 encapsulation.= =A0 When using BFD over MPLS-TP LSPs, the BFD

=A0=A0 discriminator = MUST either be signaled via LSP-Ping or be statically

=A0=A0 configured.=A0= The BFD packets MUST be sent over ACH when IP

=A0=A0 encapsulation = is not used.

=A0
2.
Is the usage of ACH TLV=92s allowed when MPLS-ACH-IP= encapsulation is used in MPLS-TP?
Question arises from the fact that to do CV in MPLS-= TP, MEP identification (carrying MEP TLV)
is required and thus ACH needs to be included even i= f IP addressing is available.
Else there should be a mechanism to do CV with IP (R= ef: Question 1)
=A0
With Regards
Mukund
=A0
=A0
=A0
=A0
=A0
=A0
=A0
=A0
=A0
=A0
=A0
=A0
=A0
=A0
=A0
--0016368331982877f5049bd38e76-- From mukund.mani@gmail.com Thu Feb 10 05:09:26 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F041D3A6A02; Thu, 10 Feb 2011 05:09:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uhk6gJNxny8P; Thu, 10 Feb 2011 05:09:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E85F3A69A6; Thu, 10 Feb 2011 05:09:25 -0800 (PST) Received: by wyf23 with SMTP id 23so1386897wyf.31 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2011 05:09:36 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=exk/kyRUbAVvPC7tS3gs3h0lSp6/r0hB4ewZxw6H2Ig=; b=Q2EpwYWLCmJZpVOoAz604yGD5Pyvw2s68eGpsAEnrBRO/3DWQRBfu+uJEIOArkUyOu 9MWV3c9mqGCZrONHZSzSHpjAFVAiwhJCDT6o+/+Vzfs+OYxBL0xi4GSkDfrnjuK+IXJn DOlrF/vRBnui+pIb/GrKxOC0kmB3IgeDlKadU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=VAFT54wZwFdgN1k+0v8FzuCJj+3fSo1RlFSD8hQSS1VAiXk/NZEqr+CGCef4vT77cd hqxosLp3N61dBa5zIf1YJ9sA22ZaI81VHVTFwREWq4370PeJkaZktVc/75ajiiEQw2sy tek7eQQnc/Z+STQlxkP7/8tQarYJH/gvPDTyk= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.227.145.17 with SMTP id b17mr6664532wbv.152.1297343376675; Thu, 10 Feb 2011 05:09:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.227.146.76 with HTTP; Thu, 10 Feb 2011 05:09:36 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <60C093A41B5E45409A19D42CF7786DFD51CDEF1D53@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> References: <60C093A41B5E45409A19D42CF7786DFD51CDEF1D53@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 18:39:36 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [mpls-tp] MPLS-ACH-IP and MPLS-IP encapsulations for BFD in MPLS-TP From: Mukund Mani To: David Allan I Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016367faf831e59c9049bed4b5c Cc: rtg-bfd@ietf.org, mpls-tp@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 13:09:27 -0000 --0016367faf831e59c9049bed4b5c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Dave Not really clear on the first one.. Here we are not including trailing MEP TLV. How do we do CV for the first BFD packet with MPLS-IP encap ? With Regards Mukund On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 1:25 PM, David Allan I w= rote: > *HI Mikund:* > ** > * You asked* > > MPLS-IP encapsulation is valid for MPLS-TP when IP addressing i= s > being used. > (i.e in this case ACH will not be used). If we follow the > procedures defined in BFD-base > drafts or BFD-MPLS, how exactly is it expected to achieve CV > (connectivity verification) > when ACH is not used in MPLS-TP? Is it acheived using Source IP > comparison? > > * Yes,.see cc-cv-rdi draft 03 version section 3 * > > A further artifact of IP encapsulation is that CV mis-connectivity defect > detection can be performed by inferring MEP_ID on the basis of the > combination of the source IP address and "my discriminator" fields. > > ** > > 2. > Is the usage of ACH TLV=92s allowed when MPLS-ACH-IP encapsulation is use= d in > MPLS-TP? > Question arises from the fact that to do CV in MPLS-TP, MEP identificatio= n > (carrying MEP TLV) > is required and thus ACH needs to be included even if IP addressing is > available. > Else there should be a mechanism to do CV with IP (Ref: Question 1) > ** > *The CC-CV-RDI draft deprecated the use of the ACH TLV in favor of a > trailing TLV for MEP ID, and we do not mandate the use of the trailing TL= V > when MPLS-ACH-IP encapsulation would be used (different code points).* > ** > *I hope this helps* > *Dave * > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --0016367faf831e59c9049bed4b5c Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Dave
=A0
Not really clear on the first one.. Here we are not including trailing= MEP TLV.=A0How do we do=A0CV for the first BFD packet with MPLS-IP encap ?=
=A0
With Regards
Mukund
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 1:25 PM, David Allan I <david.i.a= llan@ericsson.com> wrote:
HI Mikund:
=A0
=A0=A0=A0 You asked
=A0=A0=A0
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0MPLS-IP encapsulation is valid for MP= LS-TP when IP addressing is being used.
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0(i.e in this case ACH will not be use= d).=A0=A0If we follow the procedures defined in BFD-base
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0drafts or BFD-MPLS, how exactly is it= expected to achieve CV (connectivity verification)
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0when ACH is not used in MPLS-TP? Is i= t acheived using Source IP comparison?=A0
=A0
=A0=A0=A0 Yes,.see cc-cv-rdi draft 03 version section 3=A0

A f= urther artifact of IP encapsulation is that CV mis-connectivity defect dete= ction can be performed by inferring MEP_ID on the basis of the combination = of the source IP address and "my discriminato= r" fields.

2.
Is the usage of ACH TLV=92s= allowed when MPLS-ACH-IP encapsulation is used in MPLS-TP? <= /div>
Question arises from the fa= ct that to do CV in MPLS-TP, MEP identification (carrying MEP TLV) <= /font>
is required and thus ACH ne= eds to be included even if IP addressing is available.
Else there should be a mechanism to do CV with IP (Ref: Que= stion 1)=A0
<= /span>=A0
The CC-CV-RDI draft depr= ecated the use of the ACH TLV in favor of a trailing TLV for MEP ID, and we= do not mandate the use of the trailing TLV when MPLS-ACH-IP encapsulation= =A0would be used (different code points).
=A0
I hope this helps
Dave=A0
=A0
=A0
=A0
=A0
=A0
=A0
=A0
=A0
=A0
=A0
=A0
=A0
=A0
=A0
=A0
=A0

--0016367faf831e59c9049bed4b5c-- From mukund.mani@gmail.com Thu Feb 17 06:07:50 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00BC23A6E0F; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 06:07:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CHnYJv8hs01Y; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 06:07:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17BC13A6D1A; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 06:07:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by wyf23 with SMTP id 23so2711607wyf.31 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 06:08:18 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=bL5ILy66JKGs5ofhJBxjTpViSMUgVn2IFdL2uvuThxM=; b=OJC/LPFDy0AtzG4om1mISO3DvB1oIZbGVkSkX46xEx8THHmzuMMTzymfNwUk1QCAtH WVBamsNRKi122ri3SsM5AN1BxIiINph7DYfE7WtxqWdze2ykPGS4+SU2Wy8bodaovrqD CKHuJXnwbCWwLxTBCOKDTA0AURkvvcUEXP3ho= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=hFBgh256a3E2z9j+eqtU+MDXQ3knSEkuyKbxOr9zQCC77FUvt7XdVaPTRwnPI1JS9d mCRr6hygpr2VxFAkn0yGjcwQcN2r4svCh03R+Gx07yIn8EYGgWEuuUtmMnxqxackrxLW s3XgQaiMmmM3ijYwWqhR0MBzu/DKOPkGz0HUY= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.227.165.6 with SMTP id g6mr1701512wby.181.1297951698284; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 06:08:18 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.227.146.76 with HTTP; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 06:08:18 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <60C093A41B5E45409A19D42CF7786DFD51CDF3F8EE@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> References: <60C093A41B5E45409A19D42CF7786DFD51CDEF1D53@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> <60C093A41B5E45409A19D42CF7786DFD51CDF3F8EE@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 19:38:18 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [mpls-tp] MPLS-ACH-IP and MPLS-IP encapsulations for BFD in MPLS-TP From: Mukund Mani To: David Allan I Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf30025e78e971ca049c7aedbe Cc: rtg-bfd@ietf.org, mpls-tp@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 14:07:50 -0000 --20cf30025e78e971ca049c7aedbe Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Dave Thanks for your response.. Just want to touch upon further on this: "knowledge of the IP address of th= e source of the BFD packets". We could ideally have the knowledge of source IP from the source IP address of the established path over which BFD runs. But then should BFD (data plane) actually depend on the source IP address of a control plane established path, to do CV? For instance, a tunnel (four tuple - Tunnel id, instance, ingress and egres= s id) could have the ingress id as the router id. BFD control packets on the other hand could have the source IP as the interface IP address. How do we actually achieve CV in such a case ? OR is it expected (by say a configuration mechanism) that each peer knows the source IP of BFD packets for every session? With Regards Mukund On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 9:06 PM, David Allan I wrote: > Hi Mikund: > > If I understand your question correctly, you would need knowledge of the = IP > address of the source of the BFD packets. > > cheers > Dave > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Mukund Mani [mailto:mukund.mani@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, February 10, 2011 5:10 AM > *To:* David Allan I > *Cc:* rtg-bfd@ietf.org; mpls-tp@ietf.org > *Subject:* Re: [mpls-tp] MPLS-ACH-IP and MPLS-IP encapsulations for BFD i= n > MPLS-TP > > Hi Dave > > Not really clear on the first one.. Here we are not including trailing ME= P > TLV. How do we do CV for the first BFD packet with MPLS-IP encap ? > > With Regards > Mukund > On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 1:25 PM, David Allan I wrote: > >> *HI Mikund:* >> ** >> * You asked* >> >> MPLS-IP encapsulation is valid for MPLS-TP when IP addressing >> is being used. >> (i.e in this case ACH will not be used). If we follow the >> procedures defined in BFD-base >> drafts or BFD-MPLS, how exactly is it expected to achieve CV >> (connectivity verification) >> when ACH is not used in MPLS-TP? Is it acheived using Source I= P >> comparison? >> >> * Yes,.see cc-cv-rdi draft 03 version section 3 * >> >> A further artifact of IP encapsulation is that CV mis-connectivity defec= t >> detection can be performed by inferring MEP_ID on the basis of the >> combination of the source IP address and "my discriminator" fields. >> >> ** >> >> 2. >> Is the usage of ACH TLV=92s allowed when MPLS-ACH-IP encapsulation is us= ed >> in MPLS-TP? >> Question arises from the fact that to do CV in MPLS-TP, MEP identificati= on >> (carrying MEP TLV) >> is required and thus ACH needs to be included even if IP addressing is >> available. >> Else there should be a mechanism to do CV with IP (Ref: Question 1) >> ** >> *The CC-CV-RDI draft deprecated the use of the ACH TLV in favor of a >> trailing TLV for MEP ID, and we do not mandate the use of the trailing T= LV >> when MPLS-ACH-IP encapsulation would be used (different code points).* >> ** >> *I hope this helps* >> *Dave * >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > --20cf30025e78e971ca049c7aedbe Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Dave
=A0
Thanks for your response..
=A0
Just want to touch upon further on this: "knowledge of the IP add= ress of the source of the BFD packets".
=A0
We could ideally have the knowledge of source IP from the source IP ad= dress of the established path over which BFD runs. But then should BFD (dat= a plane)=A0actually depend on the source IP address of a control plane esta= blished path, to do CV?
=A0
For instance, a tunnel (four tuple - Tunnel id, instance, ingress and = egress id) could have the ingress id as the router id.
=A0
BFD control packets on the other hand could have the source IP as the = interface IP address.
=A0
How do we actually achieve CV in such a case ?
=A0
OR is it expected (by say a configuration mechanism) that each peer kn= ows the source IP of BFD packets for every session?
=A0
With Regards
Mukund

On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 9:06 PM, David Allan I <= span dir=3D"ltr"><david.i.= allan@ericsson.com> wrote:
Hi Mikund:
=A0
If I understand your question correctly, you would need knowle= dge of the IP address of the source of the BFD packets.
=A0
cheers
Dave

From: Mukund Mani [mailto:mukund.mani@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 5:10 AM
To: Davi= d Allan I
Cc: rtg-bfd@ie= tf.org; mpls-tp@i= etf.org
Subject: Re: [mpls-tp] MPLS-ACH-IP and MPLS-IP encaps= ulations for BFD in MPLS-TP

Hi Dave
=A0
Not really clear on the first one.. Here we are not including trailing= MEP TLV.=A0How do we do=A0CV for the first BFD packet with MPLS-IP encap ?=
=A0
With Regards
Mukund
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 1:25 PM, David Allan I <david.i.allan@ericsson.com> wrote:
HI Mikund:
=A0
=A0=A0=A0 You asked
=A0=A0=A0
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0MPLS-IP encapsulation is valid for MP= LS-TP when IP addressing is being used.
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0(i.e in this case ACH will not be use= d).=A0=A0If we follow the procedures defined in BFD-base
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0drafts or BFD-MPLS, how exactly is it= expected to achieve CV (connectivity verification)
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0when ACH is not used in MPLS-TP? Is i= t acheived using Source IP comparison?=A0
=A0
=A0=A0=A0 Yes,.see cc-cv-rdi draft 03 version section 3=A0

A f= urther artifact of IP encapsulation is that CV mis-connectivity defect dete= ction can be performed by inferring MEP_ID on the basis of the combination = of the source IP address and "my discriminato= r" fields.

2.
Is the usage of ACH TLV=92s= allowed when MPLS-ACH-IP encapsulation is used in MPLS-TP? <= /div>
Question arises from the fa= ct that to do CV in MPLS-TP, MEP identification (carrying MEP TLV) <= /font>
is required and thus ACH ne= eds to be included even if IP addressing is available.
Else there should be a mechanism to do CV with IP (Ref: Que= stion 1)=A0
<= /span>=A0
The CC-CV-RDI draft depr= ecated the use of the ACH TLV in favor of a trailing TLV for MEP ID, and we= do not mandate the use of the trailing TLV when MPLS-ACH-IP encapsulation= =A0would be used (different code points).
=A0
I hope this helps
Dave=A0
=A0
=A0
=A0
=A0
=A0
=A0
=A0
=A0
=A0
=A0
=A0
=A0
=A0
=A0
=A0
=A0

<= /div>
--20cf30025e78e971ca049c7aedbe--