RE: draft-bonica-tunneltrace-02

[neil.2.harrison@bt.com]

Thanks Ping.....nice to see a positive response from a specific manufacturer
to our concerns as operators on this.  This is a really good positive step
IMO. Its a shame other manufacturers have discounted Y.1710, as what Enrique
is saying here is simply a summary of some of the requirements stuff in
there.

regards, Neil 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ping Pan [mailto:pingpan@juniper.net]
> Sent: 05 March 2002 18:07
> To: Cuevas, Enrique G, ALASO
> Cc: Thomas D. Nadeau; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: draft-bonica-tunneltrace-02
> 
> 
> Cuevas, Enrique G, ALASO wrote:
> 
> > Ping,
> > Here are some functions to consider. I am sure others can 
> add to this list.
> > 
> > 1) We need a function that can detect defects automatically 
> and trigger corrective actions.
> 
> 
> OK.
> 
> 
> > 2) We need a function to detect not only LSP breaks and 
> miss-routing but also defects such as 
> 
> > LSP replication into another LSP.
> 
> 
> OK. Good thinking...
> 
> 
> > 3) We need a function to immediately suppress the user 
> traffic at the egress PE when an LSP 
> 
> > is routed-routed. 
> 
> 
> Actually, this is up to the NOC operators.
> 
> 
> > 4) To support PWE3 applications, we need a function to 
> generate AIS for the tunneled circuits 
> 
> > at the egress PE, when a defect is detected in the MPLS network.
> 
> 
> In fact, the detection mechanism should go beyond 
> protocol-level (RSVP 
> and LDP) probing. All MPLS applications, such as 
> L2-VPN/L3-VPN, should 
> be able to check the connectivity of their circuits.
> 
> > 5) We need a function to measure LSP performance accurately.
> 
> 
> OK. 
> 
> 
> > 6)
> > 
> 
> 
> And, 6) We need more useful input like you have provided. :-)
> 
> Many thanks!
> 
> - Ping
> 
> 
>