Subject: [OPSAWG] discussions on OAM considerations for draft-chen-opsawg-composite-vpn-dm-00

From: Zhoutianran <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 06:19:02 +0000

Hi,

I was CCed with some interesting discussion on draft-chen-opsawg-composite-vpn-dm-00.
I got permit to share them in this mailing list.

Regards,
Tianran

-----Original Message-----
From: Fioccola Giuseppe [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2016 12:22 AM
To: Lucy yong; Chenrui (Richard)
Cc: Zhoutianran
Subject: R: Welcome Giuseppe to the composite VPN work

Hi Lucy,
Yes, you got it right.
So the OAM example is useful to strengthen the need for this work.
Because the operator may want to monitor IP Metro and IP Core separately, or in same circumstances it is not possible to monitor end-to-end service and you can monitor only the different domains.

Giuseppe

-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: Lucy yong [mailto:[email-masked]]
Inviato: mercoledì 9 novembre 2016 15:16
A: Fioccola Giuseppe; Chenrui (Richard)
Cc: Zhoutianran
Oggetto: RE: Welcome Giuseppe to the composite VPN work

Hi Giuseppe,

When using L2VPN to construct AC link for an L3VPN, should we separate l2 OAM (link) and L3 OAM (e2e)?

Lucy

-----Original Message-----
From: Fioccola Giuseppe [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2016 5:25 AM
To: Chenrui (Richard); Lucy yong
Cc: Zhoutianran
Subject: R: Welcome Giuseppe to the composite VPN work

Hi Richard,
For sure, we are on the same basis.
My first suggestion about the requirements is that the composite VPN raises a new topic that is the NNI between L2VPN and L3VPN.
>From an operator point of view, it is important to model also the interface between the two VPNs, other than for the service definition, there is a need of coordination also for the end-to-end OAM in case of different VPN (BFD/RFC6374 for L3VPN and CFM/Y.1731 for L2VPN) in order to be conform  to end-to-end SLA targets.

Thanks

Giuseppe