1 / 6

Handling MPLS-TP OAM Packets Targeted at Internal MIPs

Handling MPLS-TP OAM Packets Targeted at Internal MIPs. draft-farrel-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map-03 A. Farrel, H. Endo, R. Winter. MIP types (as per OAM fmwk). Per node MIPs Resides in an uspecified location within the node Per interface MIPs Resides on the interfaces Up-MIP & Down-MIP.

holmes-king
Download Presentation

Handling MPLS-TP OAM Packets Targeted at Internal MIPs

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Handling MPLS-TP OAM Packets Targeted at Internal MIPs draft-farrel-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map-03 A. Farrel, H. Endo, R. Winter

  2. MIP types (as per OAM fmwk) • Per node MIPs • Resides in an uspecified location within the node • Per interface MIPs • Resides on the interfaces • Up-MIP & Down-MIP ------------------------ | | |----- -----| | MIP | | MIP | | | ---- | | ----->-| In |->-| XC |->-| Out |->---- | i/f | ---- | i/f | |----- -----| | | ------------------------ TTL expiry alone is not enough („addresses the node“)

  3. Things we thought about... • Use TTL field in GAL to address per-interface MIP • GAL an PWs still in discussion • Does not work for P2MP case to address one out of many interfaces • One solution for all TP constructs (P2P, P2MP) is desirable -------------------------- | | | -----| | | MIP | | ->-| |->---- | | | Out | | | | i/f | | | -----| |----- | -----| | MIP | ---- | | MIP | | | | |- | | ----->-| In |->-| XC |--->-| Out |->---- | i/f | | |- | i/f | |----- ---- | -----| | | -----| | | | MIP | | | | | | ->-| Out |->---- | | i/f | | -----| --------------------------

  4. Solution (LSP) No forwarding beyond this node ----------------- | Label=x | TTL=1 |--- |-----------------| | | GAL | TTL=m | | |-----------------| | | ACH Type = OAM | | ----------------- | <------ ------------------ | Label=x | TTL=1 |--- |------------------| | | GAL | TTL=m | | |------------------| | | ACH Type = OAM | | |------------------| | |ACH TLV=in/out-MIP| | ------------------ | <------ This is OAM Per node MIP/ In-MIP OAM type IN-MIP/ Out-MIP OAM recipient

  5. Solution (PW) ------------------ | Label=x | TTL=1 |--- |------------------| | | PWACH Type = OAM | | ------------------ | <------ ------------------ | Label=x | TTL=1 |--- |------------------| | | PWACH Type = OAM | | |------------------| | |ACH TLV=in/out-MIP| | ------------------ | <------

  6. Future • Open Issues • What if a packet with TTL=0 manages to leave a node? • Where should this work go • Stay where it is • Move to another document (identifiers draft) • Bin • Feedback welcome • Some received

More Related