Christian and Sasha, Section 7 of RFC 4842 discusses the actions taken when you have trace mismatch conditions as well as other SONET/SDH-layer failures. Perhaps this text should be adapted to draft-ietf-pals-ple as well.
Cheers, Andy On Thu, Nov 9, 2023 at 8:34 AM Alexander Vainshtein < alexander.vainsht...@rbbn.com> wrote: > Christian and all, > > Repeating the gist of my comments on the PLE Signaling draft > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-schmutzer-pals-ple-signaling-00> > at the MPLS WG session in Prague today. > > > > I think that Endpoint-ID defined in Section 5.5. of this draft is not > needed. > > > > If you want the endpoints of a PLE to be aware of the remote AC, you can > use the generalized PWId FEC > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8077#section-6.2> a.k.a. > FEC-129) for this purpose. > > > > I also think that your reference to Path Trace Identifier in OTN is not > really accurate: > > 1. This construct has been already defined for SONET and SDH > 2. Mismatch of Path Trace Identifier, if enabled, results in killing > he traffic (generation of downstream AIS) in both SONET/SDH and OTN. > 1. I have not found any action on mismatch of Endpoint-IDs in the > draft > 2. Mismatch of AII in FEC-129 would result in failure to establish > a PW. > > > > Hopefully these notes will be useful. > > > > > > Regards, > > Sasha > > > > > *Disclaimer* > > This e-mail together with any attachments may contain information of > Ribbon Communications Inc. and its Affiliates that is confidential and/or > proprietary for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, > disclosure, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without > express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended > recipient, please notify the sender immediately and then delete all copies, > including any attachments. >
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
