RE: CCAMP WG action items

[neil.2.harrison@bt.com]

Eric Rosen wrote 30 October 2001 17:11

> Shahram> Some comments regarding Bonica's GTTP draft:
> 
> Shahram> 1) It  relies on  IP layer  being present  and  IP 
> management-plane
> Shahram>    protocol  (ICMPs) for  the trace-probes,  and  
> trace-response to
> Shahram>    trace LSPs (layer violation). 
> 
> It relies on IP?  Heavens.  Relying on IP is a layer violation?
NH=> One should not require a higher (or indeed lower layer) technology's
fault management tools to proxy for missing fault-management.  Sure you can
work-it for some cases, but it is a not a general solution; what about
X-over-MPLS where X is not IP?  Further, creating inter-layer dependancies
is not good for protocol evolution (add/change/delete).  Since MPLS does
create new layer networks, and these will have failure modes that are not
relevant to any other layer network, then for its own long-term benefit it
should be given proper fault-management treatment.
> 
> Shahram> 2) It  is complicated. It requires many back  and 
> forth messages up
> Shahram>    and down  the protocol stack  (layer violation) 
> and up  and down
> Shahram>    the path to figure out the trace. 
> 
> Messages  up   and  down  the  path   is  the  tried   and  
> true  traceroute
> paradigm. Don't now what "up and down the protocol stack" means.
NH=> I believe Shahram means between the IP layer and the (potentially many)
MPLS layer networks.

regards, Neil
<snipped to end>