From Ramus@silentvideo.com Sat Dec 01 03:51:46 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IyO4g-0005fX-My for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 01 Dec 2007 03:51:46 -0500 Received: from [201.251.33.126] (helo=[201.251.33.126]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IyO4f-0008UX-KG for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 01 Dec 2007 03:51:46 -0500 Received: from FAMILIA by silentvideo.com with ASMTP id 84CC53A3 for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2007 05:49:15 -0300 Received: from FAMILIA ([127.148.183.126]) by silentvideo.com with ESMTP id DEC0ABF2583B for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2007 05:49:15 -0300 Message-ID: <000e01c833f6$f6dd0370$7e21fbc9@FAMILIA> From: "Ramus Lawler" To: Subject: ceased Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 05:48:37 -0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0008_01C833DD.D18FCB70" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Spam-Score: 3.3 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 93238566e09e6e262849b4f805833007 ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C833DD.D18FCB70 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Rated #1 for effectiveness and value http://mimxmap.com/ ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C833DD.D18FCB70 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Rated #1 for effectiveness and value http://mimxmap.com/
------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C833DD.D18FCB70-- From Rojasqbkgl@1photoaday.com Sat Dec 01 07:15:37 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IyRFx-0005Br-Bf for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 01 Dec 2007 07:15:37 -0500 Received: from net143-029.mclink.it ([195.110.143.29]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IyRFw-00088N-Hk for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 01 Dec 2007 07:15:37 -0500 Received: from cvittorio ([150.176.164.183] helo=cvittorio) by net143-029.mclink.it ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1BqdIn-000ALI-TT for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 1 Dec 2007 13:16:00 +0100 Message-ID: <000901c83413$e4d582c0$1d8f6ec3@cvittorio> From: "reinhard Rojas" To: Subject: lyddajun Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 13:15:42 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0005_01C8341C.4699EAC0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Spam-Score: 3.4 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C8341C.4699EAC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Before him I was with a couple of larger men and I did find them more = satisfying as I was able to orgasm with them http://www.mietlife.com/ ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C8341C.4699EAC0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Before him I was with a couple of larger men = and I did=20 find them more satisfying as I was able to orgasm with them http://www.mietlife.com/
------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C8341C.4699EAC0-- From KaymonkTeague@fordfound.org Sat Dec 01 20:13:57 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IydPB-00069m-BJ for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 01 Dec 2007 20:13:57 -0500 Received: from cpe-72-225-147-139.nj.res.rr.com ([72.225.147.139] helo=toshibauser.nj.rr.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IydPA-0000OI-U5 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 01 Dec 2007 20:13:57 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host02184930.fordfound.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id Bpiq7er408.059785.Gzr.KOt.0445420922489 for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2007 20:13:47 +0500 Message-ID: <841101c83480$9b930160$8b93e148@toshibauser> From: "Carole Bonilla" To: Subject: Approval process Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 20:13:47 +0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_840D_01C83480.9B930160" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d16ce744298aacf98517bc7c108bd198 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_840D_01C83480.9B930160 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Even if you have no erection problems Cialis Soft Tabs would help you to = make better sex more often and to bring unimaginable plesure to her. = Just disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for action in = 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking this = medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours! Package Quantity Price in your local drugstore* Our price LearnMoreNow 10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49 30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50 60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02 90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40 180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46 When you are young and stressed up… When you are aged and never give up… Cialis Soft Tabs gives you confidence in any chance, every time. ------=_NextPart_000_840D_01C83480.9B930160 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Cialis Soft=20 Tabs would help you to make better sex more often and to bring=20 unimaginable plesure to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue = and get=20 ready for action in 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of = men after=20 taking this medication were able to have perfect erection during = 24=20 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Cialis Soft Tabs gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_840D_01C83480.9B930160-- From JoannacoffeecupHannah@tuaw.com Sat Dec 01 20:45:04 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IydtI-00058I-0c for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 01 Dec 2007 20:45:04 -0500 Received: from pool-71-243-18-197.bos.east.verizon.net ([71.243.18.197] helo=damian.myhome.westell.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IydtH-0004Y0-NS for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 01 Dec 2007 20:45:03 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host01573626.tuaw.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id snG7iaEi14.959293.XSz.0mY.9275316710111 for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2007 20:44:51 +0800 Message-ID: <92dc01c8349e$17cb84b0$2d01a8c0@damian> From: "Eunice Peoples" To: Subject: Your life Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 20:44:51 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_92D8_01C8349E.17CB84B0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d16ce744298aacf98517bc7c108bd198 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_92D8_01C8349E.17CB84B0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Even if you have no erection problems Cialis Soft Tabs would help you to = make better sex more often and to bring unimaginable plesure to her. = Just disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for action in = 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking this = medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours! Package Quantity Price in your local drugstore* Our price LearnMoreNow 10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49 30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50 60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02 90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40 180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46 When you are young and stressed up… When you are aged and never give up… Cialis Soft Tabs gives you confidence in any chance, every time. ------=_NextPart_000_92D8_01C8349E.17CB84B0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Cialis Soft=20 Tabs would help you to make better sex more often and to bring=20 unimaginable plesure to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue = and get=20 ready for action in 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of = men after=20 taking this medication were able to have perfect erection during = 24=20 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Cialis Soft Tabs gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_92D8_01C8349E.17CB84B0-- From WinifredopinionateHurd@math.com Sat Dec 01 22:04:24 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iyf84-00087b-0B for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 01 Dec 2007 22:04:24 -0500 Received: from [190.65.142.199] (helo=toguro) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iyf82-00062M-MQ for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 01 Dec 2007 22:04:23 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host03979003.math.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id xczZsBSo48.581124.Tnw.UfH.5198388375757 for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2007 22:03:41 -0100 Message-ID: <2351501c83526$d64a6bd0$0401a8c0@TOGURO> From: "Tami Ott" To: Subject: Your order approved Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 22:03:41 -0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_23511_01C83526.D64A6BD0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d16ce744298aacf98517bc7c108bd198 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_23511_01C83526.D64A6BD0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Even if you have no erection problems Cialis Soft Tabs would help you to = make better sex more often and to bring unimaginable plesure to her. = Just disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for action in = 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking this = medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours! Package Quantity Price in your local drugstore* Our price LearnMoreNow 10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49 30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50 60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02 90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40 180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46 When you are young and stressed up… When you are aged and never give up… Cialis Soft Tabs gives you confidence in any chance, every time. ------=_NextPart_000_23511_01C83526.D64A6BD0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Cialis Soft=20 Tabs would help you to make better sex more often and to bring=20 unimaginable plesure to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue = and get=20 ready for action in 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of = men after=20 taking this medication were able to have perfect erection during = 24=20 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Cialis Soft Tabs gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_23511_01C83526.D64A6BD0-- From Firthnaf@spacetrain.net Sun Dec 02 00:45:49 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IyheH-0007Rg-AI for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 00:45:49 -0500 Received: from host86-133-132-180.range86-133.btcentralplus.com ([86.133.132.180] helo=[86.151.188.145]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IyheE-00054L-T7 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 00:45:47 -0500 Received: by 10.211.178.118 with SMTP id kqJlSZMWuhcrV; Sun, 2 Dec 2007 05:45:51 -0000 (GMT) Received: by 192.168.110.28 with SMTP id qRfXGgENjmGmid.2473215218428; Sun, 2 Dec 2007 05:45:49 -0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <000e01c834a6$95bb1360$91bc9756@upstairs> From: "du Firth" To: Subject: b|lingen Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 05:45:46 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0006_01C834A6.95BB1360" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Spam-Score: 3.5 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 93238566e09e6e262849b4f805833007 ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C834A6.95BB1360 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable get a MASSIVE penis today http://gesstore.com/ ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C834A6.95BB1360 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
get a MASSIVE penis today http://gesstore.com/
------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C834A6.95BB1360-- From Lacay.Crider@auctionplayer.com Sun Dec 02 01:30:04 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IyiL6-0001YD-2c for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 01:30:04 -0500 Received: from [88.230.201.111] (helo=dsl88.230-51567.ttnet.net.tr) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IyiL3-0000A1-CW for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 01:30:01 -0500 Received: from userpc ([162.108.100.123] helo=userpc) by dsl88.230-51567.ttnet.net.tr ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1juwMM-000VCL-pk for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 2 Dec 2007 08:30:23 +0100 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 08:30:08 +0100 To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org From: "Lacay Crider" Subject: nahgiekc Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 4.2 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 8ac499381112328dd60aea5b1ff596ea Yo yo yo ccamp-archive cialis offers for you http://fatherroom.com Lacay Crider From BryanfaceCole@biblegateway.com Sun Dec 02 03:17:23 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iyk0x-0000gR-N7 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 03:17:23 -0500 Received: from [88.243.34.169] (helo=casper05c0d6f0) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iyk0x-0007hk-0b for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 03:17:23 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host60931822.biblegateway.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id YkFHHVfx15.726267.J4k.JtO.7671614675220 for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2007 00:17:06 +0800 Message-ID: <3b3bb01c834bb$c1319540$2101a8c0@casper05c0d6f0> From: "Vincent Ford" To: Subject: Confirmation link Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 00:17:06 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_3B3B7_01C834BB.C1319540" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d16ce744298aacf98517bc7c108bd198 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_3B3B7_01C834BB.C1319540 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Even if you have no erection problems Cialis Soft Tabs would help you to = make better sex more often and to bring unimaginable plesure to her. = Just disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for action in = 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking this = medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours! Package Quantity Price in your local drugstore* Our price LearnMoreNow 10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49 30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50 60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02 90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40 180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46 When you are young and stressed up… When you are aged and never give up… Cialis Soft Tabs gives you confidence in any chance, every time. ------=_NextPart_000_3B3B7_01C834BB.C1319540 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Cialis Soft=20 Tabs would help you to make better sex more often and to bring=20 unimaginable plesure to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue = and get=20 ready for action in 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of = men after=20 taking this medication were able to have perfect erection during = 24=20 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Cialis Soft Tabs gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_3B3B7_01C834BB.C1319540-- From Thomassonqbt@gudzon.com Sun Dec 02 05:29:34 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iym4s-0007S4-Eu for ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 05:29:34 -0500 Received: from essn-4db63ff1.pool.einsundeins.de ([77.182.63.241]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iym4p-00052D-UF for ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 05:29:32 -0500 Received: from dell ([162.116.171.78] helo=dell) by essn-4db63ff1.pool.einsundeins.de ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1JFHKM-000VAL-Gd for ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 2 Dec 2007 11:33:58 +0100 Message-ID: <000c01c834ce$c49f7130$f13fb64d@dell> From: "Lakeesha Thomasson" To: Subject: kirehasi Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 11:33:24 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0005_01C834D7.2663D930" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Spam-Score: 3.4 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C834D7.2663D930 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable what the hell! she didnt have an orgasm again! take action today! = http://germov.com/ ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C834D7.2663D930 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
what the hell! she didnt have an = orgasm=20 again! take action today! http://germov.com/
------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C834D7.2663D930-- From NicolasselmaMcbride@deccanherald.com Sun Dec 02 06:00:40 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IymYy-00065M-L6 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 06:00:40 -0500 Received: from [213.7.147.143] (helo=home0if70iapid.lan) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IymYw-0007Wn-Gq for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 06:00:40 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host38742592.deccanherald.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id ueGQMqA986.569960.x47.Ffx.2808303131237 for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2007 13:00:06 -0200 Message-ID: <3dd9f01c834d2$8ae29220$010aa8c0@home0if70iapid> From: "Caleb Klein" To: Subject: Your order Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 13:00:06 -0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_3DD9B_01C834D2.8AE29220" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.3790.2663 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.2757 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d16ce744298aacf98517bc7c108bd198 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_3DD9B_01C834D2.8AE29220 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Even if you have no erection problems Cialis Soft Tabs would help you to = make better sex more often and to bring unimaginable plesure to her. = Just disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for action in = 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking this = medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours! Package Quantity Price in your local drugstore* Our price LearnMoreNow 10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49 30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50 60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02 90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40 180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46 When you are young and stressed up… When you are aged and never give up… Cialis Soft Tabs gives you confidence in any chance, every time. ------=_NextPart_000_3DD9B_01C834D2.8AE29220 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Cialis Soft=20 Tabs would help you to make better sex more often and to bring=20 unimaginable plesure to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue = and get=20 ready for action in 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of = men after=20 taking this medication were able to have perfect erection during = 24=20 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Cialis Soft Tabs gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_3DD9B_01C834D2.8AE29220-- From MaxwellmetallurgyMercado@boston.com Sun Dec 02 08:05:47 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IyoW3-0005P0-Lo for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 08:05:47 -0500 Received: from [218.190.140.161] (helo=ibm968d59028e3.hgcbroadband.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IyoW3-0000fC-6u for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 08:05:47 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host88703346.boston.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id LoAC6kMw36.778092.xa9.lpR.9534314381137 for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2007 21:05:33 -0800 Message-ID: From: "Coy Pace" To: , =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Cialis Soft=20 Tabs would help you to make better sex more often and to bring=20 unimaginable plesure to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue = and get=20 ready for action in 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of = men after=20 taking this medication were able to have perfect erection during = 24=20 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Cialis Soft Tabs gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_BBF7E_01C834E4.0CD20F20-- From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Sun Dec 02 08:07:01 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IyoXF-0006hi-Pv for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 08:07:01 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IyoXE-0001an-DG for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 08:07:01 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1IyoIh-000Gty-Nt for ccamp-data@psg.com; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 12:51:59 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [62.23.212.27] (helo=smail5.alcatel.fr) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1IyoIW-000GtD-28 for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 12:51:53 +0000 Received: from FRVELSBHS07.ad2.ad.alcatel.com (frvelsbhs07.ad2.ad.alcatel.com [155.132.6.79]) by smail5.alcatel.fr (8.13.4/8.13.4/ICT) with ESMTP id lB2CoCLC017646 for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2007 13:50:12 +0100 Received: from FRVELSMBS22.ad2.ad.alcatel.com ([155.132.6.52]) by FRVELSBHS07.ad2.ad.alcatel.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2499); Sun, 2 Dec 2007 13:51:45 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: comment on draft-otani-ccamp-gmpls-routing-interlink-01.txt Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 13:49:42 +0100 Message-ID: <8144761F31F48D43AD53D09F5350E38002176823@FRVELSMBS22.ad2.ad.alcatel.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: comment on draft-otani-ccamp-gmpls-routing-interlink-01.txt Thread-Index: Acg04c8CO25SA0PUSraJmcR4OeJpvg== From: "PAPADIMITRIOU Dimitri" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Dec 2007 12:51:45.0477 (UTC) FILETIME=[18494F50:01C834E2] X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.51 on 155.132.188.13 Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 856eb5f76e7a34990d1d457d8e8e5b7f hi -=20 reading this doc. it seems that two additional elements of analysis should be taken into account o) setting up unidirectional PSC LSP (or even other type) leads to an asymmetric bw counting that comes in addition to the setup bidirectional LSP o) ougoing information knowledge poses also the problem of the SC value at the other end of the link e.g. [LS2C;PSC] link note: there is a metric setting to be addressed when correlating information at such boundary thanks, -d. From praveen_Renz@MCINTOSHCOLLEGE.EDU Sun Dec 02 09:39:30 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iypyk-0005sE-GG for ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 09:39:30 -0500 Received: from [86.125.201.119] (helo=86-125-201-119.rdsnet.ro) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iypyj-0001H4-T4 for ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 09:39:30 -0500 Received: from user by MCINTOSHCOLLEGE.EDU with ASMTP id 5DCB6B4B for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2007 16:39:52 +0200 Received: from user ([171.148.150.15]) by MCINTOSHCOLLEGE.EDU with ESMTP id 499035817FBD for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2007 16:39:52 +0200 Message-ID: <445858A6.08D4ED97@MCINTOSHCOLLEGE.EDU> Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 16:39:36 +0200 From: "praveen Renz" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: nichtflu Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030804020002000703080800" X-Spam-Score: 4.0 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8 --------------030804020002000703080800 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit tired of pulling your pole? start taking penis pills today http://www.omealy.com/ --------------030804020002000703080800 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit tired of pulling your pole? start taking penis pills today http://www.omealy.com/
--------------030804020002000703080800-- From latisha_dickey_av@kraft.com Sun Dec 02 10:27:38 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IyqjJ-0003ZS-VE; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 10:27:38 -0500 Received: from 172.147.100.97.cfl.res.rr.com ([97.100.147.172] helo=northstate.net) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IyqjH-0006XH-Bm; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 10:27:35 -0500 Message-ID: <1196606888.6308@kraft.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <186c01c830c9$5e38c29b$9d572e3c@5r7rod1> Reply-To: "Latisha Dickey" X-Sender: Sender: Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 07:48:08 -0700 Subject: 75% OFF, DESIGNER FASHION CLOTHING: Dolce & Gabbana, Prada, J. Lindeberg, Juicy Couture & .. lanfmm2zlogcp1l9hyl From: "Latisha Dickey" To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org Bcc: ldap-dir-bounces@ietf.org, sctp-impl-archive@ietf.org, isms-request@ietf.org, mpls@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0CC7_99B51AAF.F937CE87" X-Spam-Score: 3.7 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: b4a0a5f5992e2a4954405484e7717d8c This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0CC7_99B51AAF.F937CE87 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit -== DESIGNER FASHION CLOTHING ==- Dolce & Gabbana, Prada, J. Lindeberg, Juicy Couture and many more! (LowestPrice on the Net!) Hats Jeans Longsleeve's Outerwear Polos Shoes Sweatshirts & Hoodies T-Shirts Wallets Watches View All Brands We Carry By Clicking Below Links: http://cqg.pctosue.com http://csy.pctosue.com ------=_NextPart_000_0CC7_99B51AAF.F937CE87 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit -== DESIGNER FASHION CLOTHING ==-
Dolce & Gabbana, Prada, J. Lindeberg, Juicy Couture and many more!
LowestPrice on the Net!

Hats
Jeans
Longsleeve's
Outerwear
Polos
Shoes
Sweatshirts & Hoodies
T-Shirts
Wallets
Watches

View All Brands We Carry By Clicking Below Links:
http://link-1.pctosue.com
http://link-2.pctosue.com ------=_NextPart_000_0CC7_99B51AAF.F937CE87-- From Grodskyiej@aavn.ch Sun Dec 02 11:01:13 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IyrFp-00023E-BS for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 11:01:13 -0500 Received: from host61-86-dynamic.1-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it ([79.1.86.61]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IyrFo-00021W-O6 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 11:01:13 -0500 Received: from STUDIO ([120.106.186.10]:15534 "EHLO STUDIO" smtp-auth: TLS-CIPHER: TLS-PEER-CN1: ) by host114-84-dynamic.9-87-r.retail.telecomitalia.it with ESMTP id S22FLGESEJCJVTIN (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Dec 2007 16:59:32 +0100 Message-ID: <210C6D68.81F3A298@aavn.ch> Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 16:59:07 +0100 From: "panou Grodsky" User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org Subject: main-mai Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 3.0 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 8ac499381112328dd60aea5b1ff596ea Night ccamp-archive Canadian pharmacy leads a demographic boom! http://waitlady.com panou Grodsky From LillianaddleMccann@annapolischamber.com Sun Dec 02 11:30:38 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IyriI-0002jP-Ev for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 11:30:38 -0500 Received: from [190.160.205.124] (helo=desktop) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IyriH-0005bT-2o for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 11:30:38 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host58808184.annapolischamber.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id VlQKiDLC24.852495.XXr.eaC.2107807350016 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2007 13:31:37 -0100 Message-ID: <1102601c835a8$7a3b8cc0$7ccda0be@desktop> From: "Bonnie Orozco" To: Cc: , =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Cialis Soft=20 Tabs would help you to make better sex more often and to bring=20 unimaginable plesure to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue = and get=20 ready for action in 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of = men after=20 taking this medication were able to have perfect erection during = 24=20 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Cialis Soft Tabs gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_11022_01C835A8.7A3B8CC0-- From JennyantigenCostello@foxnews.com Sun Dec 02 13:00:47 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iyt7X-0007VY-0j for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 13:00:47 -0500 Received: from cpc1-stap1-0-0-cust599.nott.cable.ntl.com ([86.18.166.88] helo=home714ca6fd7a) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iyt7V-0008Bm-NJ for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 13:00:46 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host35961345.foxnews.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id tlrYz6Wu77.582728.Dpj.xDy.9635615912359 for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2007 18:00:43 +0000 Message-ID: <8377801c8350d$477424a0$58a61256@home714ca6fd7a> From: "Sonia Gunter" To: , =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Cialis Soft=20 Tabs would help you to make better sex more often and to bring=20 unimaginable plesure to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue = and get=20 ready for action in 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of = men after=20 taking this medication were able to have perfect erection during = 24=20 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Cialis Soft Tabs gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_83774_01C8350D.477424A0-- From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Sun Dec 02 15:13:30 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IyvBy-0002st-18 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 15:13:30 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IyvBv-0000IY-LT for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 15:13:27 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Iyuvq-0001il-3s for ccamp-data@psg.com; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 19:56:50 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE, STOX_REPLY_TYPE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [64.59.128.220] (helo=bpd2mo1no.prod.shawcable.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Iyuv9-0001fw-Pq for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 19:56:34 +0000 Received: from bpd2mi4no.prod.shawcable.com (bpd2mi4no-qfe3.prod.shawcable.com [10.0.184.123]) by bpd2mo1no.prod.shawcable.com (Sun ONE Messaging Server 6.0 HotFix 1.01 (built Mar 15 2004)) with ESMTP id <0JSF00D5DU1CNG60@bpd2mo1no.prod.shawcable.com> for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 12:56:00 -0700 (MST) Received: from your029b8cecfe (S010600184d8d11c3.vc.shawcable.net [24.82.167.42]) by bpd2mi4no.prod.shawcable.com (Sun ONE Messaging Server 6.0 HotFix 1.01 (built Mar 15 2004)) with SMTP id <0JSF00M7SU1B5830@bpd2mi4no.prod.shawcable.com> for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 12:56:00 -0700 (MST) Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 19:55:53 +0000 From: Adrian Farrel Subject: Slides on line To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Cc: "Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS" Reply-to: Adrian Farrel Message-id: <006601c8351d$5a473940$7c01a8c0@your029b8cecfe> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1; reply-type=original Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464 Hi, A good number of slide sets are already on line. Go to the agenda at http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07dec/agenda/ccamp.htm and follow the links. Thanks to all who have made the effort to get their slides out early. Still looking for material for... Tuesday - Requirements for GMPLS Inter-Domain Routing (Tomohiro) - BGP Traffic Engineering Attribute (Yakov, Don, Hamid) - GMPLS Ethernet Label Switching Architecture and Framework (Don) - GMPLS control of Ethernet PBB-TE (Don) Thursday - ITU-T and OIF progress report (Lyndon) - ARP For GMPLS controlled PSC Ethernet Interfaces (Zafar) - OAM Requirements for GMPLS Networks (Tomohiro) - Ping and Traceroute for GMPLS LSPs in Non-Packet Switched Networks (Zafar) - GMPLS RSVP-TE Ethernet OAM Extensions (Attila) - VCAT/LCAS (Greg) - Lambda labels (Tomohiro) Apologies if you have already sent slides. Please e-kick me. Cheers, Adrian From DeborasirenDahl@biblegateway.com Sun Dec 02 15:28:30 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IyvQU-0004YQ-9K for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 15:28:30 -0500 Received: from pool-72-79-188-185.sctnpa.east.verizon.net ([72.79.188.185] helo=familyroom.myhome.westell.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IyvQT-0002Dz-6f for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 15:28:30 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host37954635.biblegateway.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id LkniOX8122.517411.4Sn.1c4.1254833458419 for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2007 15:28:14 +0500 Message-ID: <66ac01c83521$e388ded0$2f01a8c0@FAMILYROOM> From: "Latonya Shook" To: Cc: , =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Cialis Soft=20 Tabs would help you to make better sex more often and to bring=20 unimaginable plesure to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue = and get=20 ready for action in 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of = men after=20 taking this medication were able to have perfect erection during = 24=20 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Cialis Soft Tabs gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_66A8_01C83521.E388DED0-- From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Sun Dec 02 23:34:48 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iz316-0006KZ-5L for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 23:34:48 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iz312-0007Hh-37 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 23:34:48 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Iz2ou-000EIv-8v for ccamp-data@psg.com; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 04:22:12 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [202.112.26.52] (helo=mx2.sjtu.edu.cn) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Iz2oE-000EFN-5I for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 04:21:56 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx2.sjtu.edu.cn (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88510167B0; Mon, 3 Dec 2007 12:21:27 +0800 (CST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at sjtu.edu.cn Received: from mx2.sjtu.edu.cn ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx2.sjtu.edu.cn [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M3p4cprvU5eO; Mon, 3 Dec 2007 12:21:26 +0800 (CST) Received: from Weiqiangx60s (unknown [202.120.14.192]) (Authenticated sender: sunwq) by mx2.sjtu.edu.cn (Postfix) with ESMTP id D994616241; Mon, 3 Dec 2007 12:21:23 +0800 (CST) Reply-To: From: "Weiqiang Sun" To: "'Adrian Farrel'" , Cc: "'Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS'" References: <006601c8351d$5a473940$7c01a8c0@your029b8cecfe> In-Reply-To: <006601c8351d$5a473940$7c01a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Subject: RE: Slides on line Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 23:20:59 -0500 Organization: Shanghai Jiao Tong University Message-ID: <000901c83563$ef430380$cdc90a80$@edu.cn> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Acg1IQJecz518i1+TOaCMFWC8s6UAQAQWOfw Content-Language: zh-cn Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 8b431ad66d60be2d47c7bfeb879db82c Hi Adrian, Would you please change the presenter of the lsp-ddpm draft scheduled last in the Thursday meeting? I will be presenting the draft this time. :) Thanks for your help and see you in Vancouver. Weiqiang Sun -----Original Message----- From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 2:56 PM To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Cc: Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS Subject: Slides on line Hi, A good number of slide sets are already on line. Go to the agenda at http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07dec/agenda/ccamp.htm and follow the links. Thanks to all who have made the effort to get their slides out early. Still looking for material for... Tuesday - Requirements for GMPLS Inter-Domain Routing (Tomohiro) - BGP Traffic Engineering Attribute (Yakov, Don, Hamid) - GMPLS Ethernet Label Switching Architecture and Framework (Don) - GMPLS control of Ethernet PBB-TE (Don) Thursday - ITU-T and OIF progress report (Lyndon) - ARP For GMPLS controlled PSC Ethernet Interfaces (Zafar) - OAM Requirements for GMPLS Networks (Tomohiro) - Ping and Traceroute for GMPLS LSPs in Non-Packet Switched Networks (Zafar) - GMPLS RSVP-TE Ethernet OAM Extensions (Attila) - VCAT/LCAS (Greg) - Lambda labels (Tomohiro) Apologies if you have already sent slides. Please e-kick me. Cheers, Adrian From Holmann400@TREKAERO.COM Mon Dec 03 04:11:21 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iz7Ki-0003Xy-Uu for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 04:11:20 -0500 Received: from [81.5.40.243] (helo=[81.5.40.243]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iz7Kh-0001B3-RE for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 04:11:20 -0500 Received: by 10.8.49.216 with SMTP id kQepynIcTBzHd; Mon, 3 Dec 2007 11:10:41 +0200 (GMT) Received: by 192.168.105.164 with SMTP id UedKTJxGZjdVsv.8749777248970; Mon, 3 Dec 2007 11:10:39 +0200 (GMT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 11:10:36 +0200 From: "Holmann Sandboe" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org Subject: landfast Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------020305040001000004070707" X-Spam-Score: 1.9 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 798b2e660f1819ae38035ac1d8d5e3ab --------------020305040001000004070707 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Testimonial: I enjoy my extra 3 inches, the orgasms are ten times better. http://ondyrd.com/ --------------020305040001000004070707 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Testimonial: I enjoy my extra 3 inches, the orgasms are ten times
better. http://ondyrd.com/
--------------020305040001000004070707-- From breonna-Birdchang@ashevilleauctions.net Mon Dec 03 04:46:21 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iz7sb-0006wk-HQ for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 04:46:21 -0500 Received: from host224-152-static.24-87-b.business.telecomitalia.it ([87.24.152.224]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iz7sY-0003W8-HU for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 04:46:19 -0500 Received: by 10.156.109.2 with SMTP id RoWwEjtexDrYo; Mon, 3 Dec 2007 10:35:10 +0100 (GMT) Received: by 192.168.162.235 with SMTP id SkrXCtCqyPShJi.0061671540456; Mon, 3 Dec 2007 10:35:08 +0100 (GMT) Message-ID: <0B7A3D88.1BB02DD2@ashevilleauctions.net> Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 10:35:05 +0100 From: "breonna Birdchang" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org Subject: i-ecived Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------000406040004000108020403" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8 --------------000406040004000108020403 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit keep it rock solid everytime and all night long http://www.ollster.com/ --------------000406040004000108020403 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit keep it rock solid everytime and all night long http://www.ollster.com/
--------------000406040004000108020403-- From delMalmi@sunhuan.com Mon Dec 03 04:56:36 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iz82W-0002V5-LP for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 04:56:36 -0500 Received: from [12.146.211.130] (helo=[12.146.211.130]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iz82W-0004AM-70 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 04:56:36 -0500 Received: from hnhouapdtpms004 ([158.105.141.134]:21397 "EHLO hnhouapdtpms004" smtp-auth: TLS-CIPHER: TLS-PEER-CN1: ) by [12.146.211.130] with ESMTP id S22IVENKREOVPFEZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Dec 2007 03:56:39 -0600 Message-ID: <000c01c83592$c1ca3110$82d3920c@hnhouapdtpms004> From: "del Malmi" To: Subject: seetceje Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 03:56:21 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0005_01C83560.772FC110" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e5ba305d0e64821bf3d8bc5d3bb07228 ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C83560.772FC110 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Yo yo yo ccamp-archive Canadian pharmacy better than ever http://waitlady.com del Malmi ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C83560.772FC110 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Yo yo yo ccamp-archive
Canadian pharmacy better than ever
http://waitlady.com
del Malmi
------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C83560.772FC110-- From Jethro.gleason@CANON.CL Mon Dec 03 06:56:21 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iz9uP-0004Yw-Kd for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 06:56:21 -0500 Received: from dpq215.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl ([83.24.150.215]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Iz9uO-0000LL-Pm for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 06:56:21 -0500 Received: from SLAWEK ([153.181.152.80]:25806 "EHLO SLAWEK" smtp-auth: TLS-CIPHER: TLS-PEER-CN1: ) by dpq215.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl with ESMTP id S22WHRCZVBDHQFXM (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Dec 2007 12:56:52 +0100 Message-ID: <000301c835a3$8358b7b0$d7961853@SLAWEK> From: "Jethro gleason" To: Subject: ehcspaak Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 12:56:17 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0003_01C835AB.E51D1FB0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Spam-Score: 2.5 (++) X-Scan-Signature: b19722fc8d3865b147c75ae2495625f2 ------=_NextPart_000_0003_01C835AB.E51D1FB0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1250" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable hello ccamp-archive one night might mean everything. insure yourself with Viagra http://sharpother.com Jethro gleason ------=_NextPart_000_0003_01C835AB.E51D1FB0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1250" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
hello ccamp-archive
one night might mean everything. insure = yourself with=20 Viagra
http://sharpother.com
Jethro gleason
------=_NextPart_000_0003_01C835AB.E51D1FB0-- From tmsurge@cds.net Mon Dec 03 07:39:51 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzAaV-00027y-Co for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 07:39:51 -0500 Received: from [123.205.71.146] (helo=cds.net) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzAaR-0001q7-Mw for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 07:39:49 -0500 Received: from mychat6aadedd5 ([88.59.1.153] helo=mychat6aadedd5) by 9247cd7bcds.net with ESMTP id x2FXRIKZ008079 for ; Mon, 3 Dec 2007 20:37:25 +0800 Message-ID: <000f01c835ec$5049b1a0$01c0e9bc@mychat6aadedd5> From: Valarie To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org Subject: be chat Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 20:37:25 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000C_01C835EC.5049B1A0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2720.1409 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2720.0000 X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: a7d6aff76b15f3f56fcb94490e1052e4 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C835EC.5049B1A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable into associating it with virtual reality. It is ridiculous that that. But since that`s what i`m doing anyways, heck, why not? I contribution to the development of the child. Children are drawn ------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C835EC.5049B1A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

will provide invaluable clues to the future. Eventually we are

Are you wanting a bi/gg er pe \nis?

As seen on TV

Ov \er 722,000 Men aro /und the world are already sat \isfied
Gain 2+ Inc /hes In Len /gth
Inc \rease Your Pe /nis Wid /th (Gir \th) By u/p-to 21%
100% Safe To Take, With NO Side Effe /cts
No Pumps! No Surgery! No Exercises!

and it is not necessary. This has got to be a good thing.
------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C835EC.5049B1A0-- From Normel771@arcade-conseil.fr Mon Dec 03 08:58:24 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzBoW-00044Y-0v for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 08:58:24 -0500 Received: from [82.153.66.51] (helo=[82.153.66.51]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzBoU-0005kC-8V for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 08:58:22 -0500 Received: from wokka-extra ([167.192.49.112] helo=wokka-extra) by [82.153.66.51] ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1CaMhY-000VJA-hd for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 3 Dec 2007 13:59:03 -0000 Message-ID: <000c01c835b4$94ff3dc0$33429952@wokkaextra> From: "Normel khkjh" To: Subject: mippei Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 13:58:29 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0007_01C835B4.94FF3DC0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b19722fc8d3865b147c75ae2495625f2 ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C835B4.94FF3DC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Evening ccamp-archive one night might mean everything. yourself with Canadian pharmacy http://fatherroom.com Normel khkjh ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C835B4.94FF3DC0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Evening ccamp-archive
one night might mean everything. yourself = with Canadian=20 pharmacy
http://fatherroom.com
Normel khkjh
------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C835B4.94FF3DC0-- From noël@surecom.com Mon Dec 03 12:01:04 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzEfI-0002kV-3o for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 12:01:04 -0500 Received: from ip-78-94-155-102.ph-1511g-bsr64k-02.ish.de ([78.94.155.102]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzEfH-0000dg-8Z for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 12:01:04 -0500 Received: from [78.94.155.102] by bgw-mx2.surecom.com; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 17:01:00 +0000 Message-ID: <000901c835ce$031d5a7b$fd271eba@asuao> From: "jecho gala" To: Subject: Home-based job opportunity Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:13:37 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.3790.2663 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.2757 X-Spam-Score: 3.5 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 1ac7cc0a4cd376402b85bc1961a86ac2 We are Looking for partners worldwide. The position is home-based. Our Company Head Office is located in UK with branches all over the world. We are looking for talented, honest, reliable representatives from different regions. The ideal candidate will be an intelligent person, someone who can work autonomously with a high degree of enthusiasm. Our Company offers a very competitive salary to the successful candidate, along with an unrivalled career progression opportunity. If you would like to work with our active, dynamic team, we invite you to apply for employment. Preference will be given to applicants with knowledge of multiple languages. Please send the following information to Avelina.Blum.2k7@gmail.com. 1. Full name 2 Address of residence 3 Contact Phone numbers 4 Languages spoken 5 Whether you are interested in part time job or full time employment. Thank you. We look forward to working with you. If you received this message in error, please send a blank email to: SandySparksEP@gmail.com. From Lanny_Purk@login2.powertech.no Mon Dec 03 13:29:17 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzG2f-0003qy-5O for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 13:29:17 -0500 Received: from ppp-115-88.21-151.libero.it ([151.21.88.115]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzG2e-0001RF-K4 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 13:29:17 -0500 Received: by 10.136.108.145 with SMTP id sxywpAuXGvkhT; Mon, 3 Dec 2007 19:29:15 +0100 (GMT) Received: by 192.168.215.81 with SMTP id ImxUYzJBMmniaC.8948038984223; Mon, 3 Dec 2007 19:29:13 +0100 (GMT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 19:29:10 +0100 From: "Lanny Purk" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org Subject: utoquote Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 3.2 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 08e48e05374109708c00c6208b534009 i woke up one morning and my dick looked bigger, i wasnt sure so i
asked my wife to look and she started sucking it http://cleport.com/
From Kames-Normand@acos31.fr Mon Dec 03 16:57:08 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzJHo-0005hY-Pf for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 16:57:08 -0500 Received: from [195.137.157.119] (helo=[195.137.157.119]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzJHn-0000eB-It for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 16:57:08 -0500 Received: from fabio-dcugfqgrp ([177.166.185.12]:27831 "EHLO fabio-dcugfqgrp" smtp-auth: TLS-CIPHER: TLS-PEER-CN1: ) by [195.137.157.119] with ESMTP id S22FUDHQJIAGWBPO (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Dec 2007 22:57:41 +0100 Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 22:57:11 +0100 From: "Kames Normand" Reply-To: "Kames Normand" Message-ID: <801147156407.085928456405@acos31.fr> To: Subject: gambadoe MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original X-Spam-Score: 4.0 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 8ac499381112328dd60aea5b1ff596ea Yo yo yo ccamp-archive cailis and waigra for you and your women http://mileglass.com Kames Normand From oqq@boalch.com Mon Dec 03 21:41:43 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzNjD-000558-EE for ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 21:41:43 -0500 Received: from ppp85-140-223-18.pppoe.mtu-net.ru ([85.140.223.18] helo=computer) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzNjC-00017c-HA for ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 21:41:43 -0500 Received: from [85.140.223.18] by mx2.maildefender.net; Tue, 4 Dec 2007 05:40:16 +0300 From: "Odell Dupree" To: Subject: =?koi8-r?B?98HbIPPQwc0g1dfJxNHUINfTxSEg?= Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 05:40:16 +0300 Message-ID: <01c83638$25c82000$12df8c55@oqq> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0006_01C83638.25C82000" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1158 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Score: 4.0 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 52f7a77164458f8c7b36b66787c853da This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C83638.25C82000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit E-mail ÒÁÓÓÙÌËÉ ÏÔ 2500 ÒÕÂ. óÐÁÍ ÈÏÓÔÉÎÇ - ÍÅÓÔÏ ÐÏÄ ×ÁÛ ÓÁÊÔ ÏÔ 100 $ òÁÓÓÙÌËÁ ÎÁ 1,5 ÍÉÌÌÉÁÒÄÁ E-mail ÁÄÒÅÓÏ× ICQ:286-926-971 vampismo@vam-pismo.ru ÐÏ ÄÏÍÅÎÕ ×ÉÄÎÏ ÓÁÊÔ! ÔÅÌ. (495) 585-79-04 ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C83638.25C82000 Content-Type: text/html; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
E-mail =D2=C1=D3=D3=D9=CC=CB=C9 =CF=D4 = 2500 =D2=D5=C2.
=F3=D0=C1=CD =C8=CF=D3=D4=C9=CE=C7<= /FONT> - =CD=C5=D3=D4=CF =D0=CF=C4 =D7=C1= =DB =D3=C1=CA=D4 =CF=D4 100 $
=F2=C1=D3=D3=D9=CC=CB=C1 =CE=C1 1,5 =CD=C9= =CC=CC=C9=C1=D2=C4=C1 E-mail =C1=C4=D2=C5=D3=CF=D7
ICQ:286-926-971
vampismo@vam-pismo.ru  =D0=CF =C4= =CF=CD=C5=CE=D5 =D7=C9=C4=CE=CF =D3=C1=CA=D4!
=D4=C5=CC. (495) 585-79-04
------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C83638.25C82000-- From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Mon Dec 03 23:11:36 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzP8C-0001sN-6y for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 23:11:36 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzP8A-00006j-MK for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 23:11:36 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1IzOrl-000ONQ-4N for ccamp-data@psg.com; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 03:54:37 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE, STOX_REPLY_TYPE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [62.128.201.248] (helo=asmtp1.iomartmail.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1IzOrB-000OKB-9C for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 03:54:19 +0000 Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.8) with ESMTP id lB43rvW4027726 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2007 03:53:57 GMT Received: from your029b8cecfe (dhcp-14bd.ietf70.org [130.129.20.189]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lB43rrGl027709 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2007 03:53:57 GMT Message-ID: <02b301c83629$48da8a60$bd148182@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Subject: Fw: [mpls] working group early review ofdraft-ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-framework-01.txt Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 03:53:46 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 8b431ad66d60be2d47c7bfeb879db82c Hi CCAMP, Please keep an eye on this work being done in the MPLS working group. It directly affects your protocol work. Thanks, Adrian ----- Original Message ----- From: "Loa Andersson" To: Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 12:46 AM Subject: [mpls] working group early review ofdraft-ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-framework-01.txt > Working Group, > > at the working group meeting today we agreed that it is time for > a *working group early review* of the > > draft-ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-framework-01.txt > > We want the working group participants to take the time to > carefully read and comment on the draft. > > Please send your comments to the working group mailing list. > > Loa and George > > -- > Loa Andersson > > Principal Networking Architect > Acreo AB phone: +46 8 632 77 14 > Isafjordsgatan 22 mobile: +46 739 81 21 64 > Kista, Sweden email: loa.andersson@acreo.se > loa@pi.se > > This email was Anti Virus checked by Astaro Security Gateway. > http://www.astaro.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > mpls mailing list > mpls@lists.ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls > From Nachod@po-int.com Tue Dec 04 01:24:27 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzRCl-0007sr-K8 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 01:24:27 -0500 Received: from host-70-45-164-159.onelinkpr.net ([70.45.164.159]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzRCh-0002n7-8A for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 01:24:25 -0500 Received: by 10.138.39.87 with SMTP id uDQIaoTmmBSat; Tue, 4 Dec 2007 02:24:19 -0400 (GMT) Received: by 192.168.119.53 with SMTP id kihxNtIwsqezeC.4058058384669; Tue, 4 Dec 2007 02:24:17 -0400 (GMT) Message-ID: <000a01c8363e$4a625650$9fa42d46@fernando> From: "specner Nachod" To: Subject: ruohca Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 02:24:14 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0003_01C8361C.C350B650" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Spam-Score: 2.2 (++) X-Scan-Signature: e5ba305d0e64821bf3d8bc5d3bb07228 ------=_NextPart_000_0003_01C8361C.C350B650 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Morning ccamp-archive this is mens world with wiagra http://mileglass.com specner Nachod ------=_NextPart_000_0003_01C8361C.C350B650 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Morning ccamp-archive
this is mens world with wiagra
http://mileglass.com
specner Nachod
------=_NextPart_000_0003_01C8361C.C350B650-- From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Tue Dec 04 09:03:22 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzYMs-0002ba-1y for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 09:03:22 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzYMr-00012B-EM for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 09:03:22 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1IzY3I-000Jlj-9g for ccamp-data@psg.com; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 13:43:08 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [72.71.250.34] (helo=lucidvision.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1IzY37-000JlF-63 for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 13:43:02 +0000 Received: from [192.168.1.120] (static-72-71-250-36.cncdnh.fios.verizon.net [72.71.250.36]) by lucidvision.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AF155A4C3; Tue, 4 Dec 2007 08:43:03 -0500 (EST) Cc: Otani Tomohiro , "((zali)) Ali Zafar" Message-Id: <1AF0E1E7-0264-4F61-A890-EE6BD4ADC1A9@lucidvision.com> From: Thomas Nadeau To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org In-Reply-To: <000901c83563$ef430380$cdc90a80$@edu.cn> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Subject: draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 08:42:55 -0500 References: <006601c8351d$5a473940$7c01a8c0@your029b8cecfe> <000901c83563$ef430380$cdc90a80$@edu.cn> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 31247fb3be228bb596db9127becad0bc I have some questions/comments about this draft. 0) The draft needs to be organized a bit better so that it is clear what you are trying to achieve. For example, some of the introductory text is unclear as to whether or not you are verifying the control or data planes (or both). At least to my reading. 1) This solution seems tightly coupled between RFCs 4204 and 4379. Is it reasonable to assume that all implementations will support 4204? This also seems to beg the question of "are there too many moving parts here?" for this to ultimately work and interoperate between 2 vendors. 2) Which packet formats are to be used in this approach? All I see are statements like "send Test messages", but no details of that. 3) Can this approach guarantee that the data plane is checked completely, and if not, what percentage of coverage is given? 4) In section 2.2, you stipulate: To limit the scope of LSP Verification to a particular LSP, LSP-id is used in LOCAL_LINK_ID or REMOTE_LINK_ID fields of the LMP message exchanges during verification. Something similar has been proposed as an addition to lsp ping for the multi-cast case. Please check into this to see if this is similar enough to reuse that object. 5) Is the link verification actually sent over the LMP control channel or the actual data path? Your text is unclear on this: To initiate the link verification procedure, the Ingress (Egress) node MUST send a BeginVerify message over a control channel with IP address of the destination (source) node of the LSP. To limit the scope of LSP Verification to a particular LSP, LSP-id is used in LOCAL_LINK_ID or REMOTE_LINK_ID fields of the LMP message exchanges during verification. If the LINK_ID field is zero, the verification can span multiple LSPs between the set of Ingress/Egress nodes involved in the verification process. The rest of the details for LSP verification follow the LMP link verification procedure [RFC4204]. RFC4204 states that the link verify messages are NOT to be sent over the control channel, and since you want to verify the data plane you should follow its rules for this: 12.5.6. Test Message (Msg Type = 10) The Test message is transmitted over the data link and is used to verify its physical connectivity. Unless explicitly stated, these messages MUST be transmitted over UDP like all other LMP messages. The format of the Test messages is as follows: ::= The above transmission order SHOULD be followed. Note that this message is sent over a data link and NOT over the control channel. The transport mechanism for the Test message is negotiated using the Verify Transport Mechanism field of the BEGIN_VERIFY object and the Verify Transport Response field of the BEGIN_VERIFY_ACK object (see Sections 13.8 and 13.9). 6) I suggest passing this document by the MPLS WG and the LSP ping co- authors to ensure that your desire to reuse that protocol will indeed work, and that if this is eventually adopted as a CCAMP work item that it not pass WG last call until the MPLS WG has reviewed it. From Judah@anandaeast.org Tue Dec 04 09:12:25 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzYVd-000254-DH for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 09:12:25 -0500 Received: from gateway11.ornis.com ([194.133.14.20]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzYVc-0005u3-Ss for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 09:12:25 -0500 Received: from Maquette ([165.104.36.5]:2894 "EHLO Maquette" smtp-auth: TLS-CIPHER: TLS-PEER-CN1: ) by gateway11.ornis.com with ESMTP id S22NCCHHYPOPGUKD (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Dec 2007 16:10:10 +0100 Message-ID: <000601c83687$b76ae520$140e85c2@Maquette> From: "Judah macias" To: Subject: aivattiv Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 16:09:50 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0007_01C83690.192F4D20" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Spam-Score: 3.6 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: e5ba305d0e64821bf3d8bc5d3bb07228 ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C83690.192F4D20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi there ccamp-archive this is mens world with wiagra http://wishvowel.com Judah macias ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C83690.192F4D20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi there ccamp-archive
this is mens world with wiagra
http://wishvowel.com
Judah macias
------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C83690.192F4D20-- From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Tue Dec 04 09:16:50 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzYZu-0001rC-3p for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 09:16:50 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzYZt-00027Y-9f for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 09:16:50 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1IzYHc-000L3N-Oi for ccamp-data@psg.com; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 13:57:56 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE, RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [72.71.250.34] (helo=lucidvision.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1IzYHQ-000L2d-SH for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 13:57:50 +0000 Received: from [192.168.1.120] (static-72-71-250-36.cncdnh.fios.verizon.net [72.71.250.36]) by lucidvision.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E5AE5A5BA; Tue, 4 Dec 2007 08:57:51 -0500 (EST) Cc: attila.takacs@ericsson.com, balazs.gero@ericsson.com Message-Id: <82939598-D4E1-418F-B661-D6E5A7A4AB09@lucidvision.com> From: Thomas Nadeau To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org In-Reply-To: <000901c83563$ef430380$cdc90a80$@edu.cn> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-19--573868090 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Subject: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 08:57:43 -0500 References: <006601c8351d$5a473940$7c01a8c0@your029b8cecfe> <000901c83563$ef430380$cdc90a80$@edu.cn> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 612a16ba5c5f570bfc42b3ac5606ac53 --Apple-Mail-19--573868090 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit After reading this draft, I have some questions/comments. 1) Overall, I am concerned that the definition of a new TLV and these procedures represent what amounts to a laying violation and ask that the ADs take a look at this approach closely. This is similar to the now-rejected approach that was proposed in the l2vpn WG about munging CFM + PWs. To my reading, this is essentially the same thing. If you want to run CFM, run it natively over the ethernet interfaces and have no regard for the underlying topology (GMPLS, PWs, etc...) otherwise you will be creating a mess for implementations and interoperability. 2) The introductory sections in this draft give a lot of discussion about fast fault detection. I am puzzled by this given that GMPLS networks tend to run over quickly self-healing optical infrastructures. Is it therefore truly necessary to motivate this work by requiring fast CFMs? 3) This document does not cover E-LMI. Why not? For the purposes of this document, we only discuss Ethernet OAM [IEEE-CFM] aspects that are relevant for the connectivity monitoring of bidirectional point-to-point PBB-TE connections. 4) Is this the right place to define this document or should this be done in GELS? 5) In section 2 you make the following statement: 2. GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions To simplify the configuration of connectivity monitoring, when an Ethernet LSP is signalled the associated MEPs should be automatically established. Further more, GMPLS signalling should be able to enable/disable connectivity monitoring of a particular Ethernet LSP. To my point in #1 above, you should use the native CFM functionality over the ethernet interface and signal those capabilities to the bridges at both ends using the IEEE CFM signaling procedures (when and if they are created). If you want to test the underlying GMPLS LSP(s), then you should use some other mechanism defined for that layer such as the work stated in draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt --Apple-Mail-19--573868090 Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

After = reading this draft, I have some questions/comments.

1) = Overall, I am concerned that the definition of a new TLV and these = procedures represent 
what amounts to a laying = violation and ask that the ADs take a look at this
= approach closely. This is similar to the now-rejected approach = that was proposed
= in the l2vpn WG about munging CFM + PWs.  To my reading, = this is essentially
= the same thing. If you want to run CFM, run it natively over the = ethernet interfaces and
have no regard for the = underlying topology (GMPLS, PWs, etc...) otherwise you 
= will be creating a mess for implementations and = interoperability. 

= 2) The introductory sections in this draft give a lot of = discussion about fast fault detection. I
= am puzzled by this given that GMPLS networks tend to run over = quickly self-healing
= optical infrastructures. Is it = therefore truly necessary to motivate this work by
= requiring fast CFMs?

3) This = document does not cover E-LMI. Why not?

= For = the purposes of this document, we only discuss Ethernet = OAM
   [IEEE-CFM] = aspects that are relevant for the connectivity monitoring
=    of bidirectional point-to-point PBB-TE connections. =  

= 4) Is this the right place to define this document or should this = be done in GELS?
5)   = In section 2 you make the following statement:
= 2.  GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions
    To = simplify the configuration of connectivity monitoring, when an
=    Ethernet LSP is signalled the associated MEPs should = be automatically
    = established.  Further more, GMPLS signalling should be able = to
=   enable/disable connectivity monitoring of a = particular Ethernet LSP.


To my point in #1 above, = you should use the native CFM functionality over the ethernet interface = and signal
those capabilities to the = bridges at both ends using the IEEE CFM signaling procedures (when and = if they
= are created).  If you want to test the underlying GMPLS = LSP(s), then you should use some
other mechanism defined = for that layer such as the work stated in  Subject: assorbii Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 3.5 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: bb8eae9af85e4fcfe76f325e38493bf4 With the help of this, your nickname between girls will grow from "Totally flat" to "Monster orgasm". http://opussom.com/ From Bradleyuzcz@wildsalmon.org Tue Dec 04 10:21:21 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzZaL-0007Sk-Mz for ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 10:21:21 -0500 Received: from [208.51.73.25] (helo=[208.51.73.25]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzZaL-0001ow-4b for ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 10:21:21 -0500 Received: from ghella-645fa08c ([182.165.60.42]:30005 "EHLO ghella-645fa08c" smtp-auth: TLS-CIPHER: TLS-PEER-CN1: ) by [208.51.73.25] with ESMTP id S22IMEDCWDFJMAYZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Dec 2007 11:24:21 -0400 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 11:23:46 -0400 To: ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org From: "Bonita Bradley" Subject: oslaewnu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 3.5 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: bb8eae9af85e4fcfe76f325e38493bf4 make her buckle and moan all night when you split that pussy wide open http://www.opussom.com/ From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Tue Dec 04 14:15:40 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzdF6-00038v-Rv for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 14:15:40 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzdF5-0006PH-KD for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 14:15:40 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1IzctO-00005o-Dv for ccamp-data@psg.com; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 18:53:14 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE, RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [193.180.251.62] (helo=mailgw4.ericsson.se) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1IzcsC-000PwH-3n for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 18:52:36 +0000 Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id DAB5022285; Tue, 4 Dec 2007 19:51:55 +0100 (CET) X-AuditID: c1b4fb3e-b06a2bb00000459d-10-4755a1cb2f0c Received: from esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.254.123]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id BBE54221FE; Tue, 4 Dec 2007 19:51:55 +0100 (CET) Received: from esealmw116.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.200.7]) by esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 4 Dec 2007 19:51:55 +0100 x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C836A6.BD3C0438" Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 19:51:54 +0100 Message-ID: <53CCFDD6E346CB43994852666C210E9102624606@esealmw116.eemea.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <82939598-D4E1-418F-B661-D6E5A7A4AB09@lucidvision.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Thread-Index: Acg2fa9ERD84PXLlRIuBghgkPWaGDAAJD5Sg References: <006601c8351d$5a473940$7c01a8c0@your029b8cecfe> <000901c83563$ef430380$cdc90a80$@edu.cn> <82939598-D4E1-418F-B661-D6E5A7A4AB09@lucidvision.com> From: "Attila Takacs" To: "Thomas Nadeau" , Cc: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Dec 2007 18:51:55.0375 (UTC) FILETIME=[BD9D8FF0:01C836A6] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 43ca87c8fcef5d9f6e966e1c3917103e This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C836A6.BD3C0438 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Thomas, =20 Thank you for the comments! Please see answers inline. =20 Best regards, Attila ________________________________ From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com]=20 Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 2:58 PM To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Cc: Attila Takacs; balazs.gero@ericsson.com Subject: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt =09 =09 =09 =09 =09 =09 After reading this draft, I have some questions/comments. =09 =09 =09 1) Overall, I am concerned that the definition of a new TLV and these procedures represent=20 what amounts to a laying violation and ask that the ADs take a look at this =09 approach closely. This is similar to the now-rejected approach that was proposed =09 in the l2vpn WG about munging CFM + PWs. To my reading, this is essentially =09 the same thing. If you want to run CFM, run it natively over the ethernet interfaces and have no regard for the underlying topology (GMPLS, PWs, etc...) otherwise you=20 =09 will be creating a mess for implementations and interoperability. =20 The application of the draft is exactly for what you are calling out: when CFM is run natively over the Ethernet interfaces. The document focuses on GELS and Ethernet LSPs. That is, to establish CFM entities for GMPLS controlled Ethernet LSPs. Hence, I think there is no layer violation issue. 2) The introductory sections in this draft give a lot of discussion about fast fault detection. I =09 am puzzled by this given that GMPLS networks tend to run over quickly self-healing =09 optical infrastructures. Is it therefore truly necessary to motivate this work by =09 requiring fast CFMs? =09 It is right that frequent CCMs are not required if the layers below Ethernet handle protection. However, the ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs where Ethernet is not just a single hop above a transport LSP. In this case Ethernet layer (for clarity GELS) may provide protection for Ethernet LSPs. In any case, the whole point of the ID is to allow for the appropriate configuration of CFM for Ethernet LSPs with GMPLS. 3) This document does not cover E-LMI. Why not? =09 =09 E-LMI is run over the MEF UNI. The ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs within a network. =20 For the purposes of this document, we only discuss Ethernet OAM [IEEE-CFM] aspects that are relevant for the connectivity monitoring of bidirectional point-to-point PBB-TE connections. =20 =09 =09 4) Is this the right place to define this document or should this be done in GELS? =09 =09 Well, GELS is done in CCAMP...this seems to be the right place. =20 =09 =09 5) In section 2 you make the following statement: =09 =09 2. GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions =09 =09 To simplify the configuration of connectivity monitoring, when an Ethernet LSP is signalled the associated MEPs should be automatically established. Further more, GMPLS signalling should be able to enable/disable connectivity monitoring of a particular Ethernet LSP. =09 =09 =09 =09 To my point in #1 above, you should use the native CFM functionality over the ethernet interface and signal those capabilities to the bridges at both ends using the IEEE CFM signaling procedures (when and if they =09 are created). If you want to test the underlying GMPLS LSP(s), then you should use some other mechanism defined for that layer such as the work stated in draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt See the note to your point #1. There is no relation to the gmpls-LSP-ping draft.=20 =20 =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C836A6.BD3C0438 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi=20 Thomas,
 
Thank=20 you for the comments!
Please=20 see answers inline.
 
Best=20 regards,
Attila

From: Thomas Nadeau=20 [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December = 04, 2007=20 2:58 PM
To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Cc: Attila Takacs;=20 balazs.gero@ericsson.com
Subject:=20 draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt


After reading=20 this draft, I have some questions/comments.
1) = Overall, I am concerned that the definition of a new TLV and = these=20 procedures represent 
what amounts=20 to a laying violation and ask that the ADs take a look at this
approach=20 closely. This is similar to the now-rejected approach that was = proposed
in = the l2vpn=20 WG about munging CFM + PWs.  To my reading, this is = essentially
the same=20 thing. If you want to run CFM, run it natively over the ethernet = interfaces=20 and
have no regard=20 for the underlying topology (GMPLS, PWs, etc...) otherwise = you 
will be=20 creating a mess for implementations and interoperability.  
The=20 application of the draft is exactly for what you are calling out: = when CFM=20 is run natively over the Ethernet interfaces. The document focuses on = GELS and=20 Ethernet LSPs. That is, to establish CFM entities for GMPLS = controlled=20 Ethernet LSPs. Hence, I think = there is no=20 layer violation issue.

2) The=20 introductory sections in this draft give a lot of discussion about = fast fault=20 detection. I
am = puzzled by=20 this given that GMPLS networks tend to run over quickly = self-healing
optical=20 infrastructures. Is it therefore truly necessary to motivate = this=20 work by
requiring fast=20 CFMs?
It is=20 right that frequent CCMs are not required if the layers below Ethernet = handle=20 protection. However, the ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs where Ethernet = is not=20 just a single hop above a transport LSP. In this = case Ethernet=20 layer (for clarity GELS) may provide protection for Ethernet = LSPs. In any=20 case,  the whole point of the ID is to allow for the appropriate=20 configuration of CFM for Ethernet LSPs with GMPLS.

3) = This=20 document does not cover E-LMI. Why not?
E-LMI=20 is run over the MEF UNI. The ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs within a=20 network.
 

For the purposes of = this=20 document, we only discuss Ethernet OAM
   [IEEE-CFM] aspects that = are=20 relevant for the connectivity monitoring
   of bidirectional = point-to-point=20 PBB-TE connections.  

4) Is this the right place to define = this=20 document or should this be done in GELS?
Well, GELS is done in CCAMP...this seems to be the right=20 place.
 
5)   In section 2 you make the = following=20 statement:

2.  GMPLS RSVP-TE = Extensions

    To simplify the = configuration of=20 connectivity monitoring, when an
   Ethernet LSP is = signalled the=20 associated MEPs should be automatically
    established.  Further = more, GMPLS=20 signalling should be able to
  enable/disable = connectivity=20 monitoring of a particular Ethernet LSP.
To my point in #1 above, you should = use the=20 native CFM functionality over the ethernet interface and signal
those capabilities to the bridges at = both ends=20 using the IEEE CFM signaling procedures (when and if they
are created).  If you want to = test the=20 underlying GMPLS LSP(s), then you should use some
other mechanism defined for that = layer such as=20 the work stated in draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt
See the = note to=20 your point #1. There is no relation to the gmpls-LSP-ping=20 draft. 
 
 
------_=_NextPart_001_01C836A6.BD3C0438-- From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Tue Dec 04 14:37:42 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzdaQ-0005Kd-2z for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 14:37:42 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzdaP-00050D-EO for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 14:37:42 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1IzdQG-0003Zg-GA for ccamp-data@psg.com; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 19:27:12 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [80.86.78.228] (helo=fw.testbed.se) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1IzdPl-0003XZ-4M for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 19:26:56 +0000 Received: from MailerDaemon by fw.testbed.se with local-bsmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1IzdPg-00027M-Ml for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 20:26:36 +0100 Received: from [130.129.86.87] (port=1801) by fw.testbed.se with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1IzdPd-000276-Uq; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 20:26:34 +0100 Message-ID: <4755A9DF.5060809@pi.se> Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 20:26:23 +0100 From: Loa Andersson Organization: Acreo AB User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Thomas Nadeau CC: ccamp@ops.ietf.org, attila.takacs@ericsson.com, balazs.gero@ericsson.com Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt References: <006601c8351d$5a473940$7c01a8c0@your029b8cecfe> <000901c83563$ef430380$cdc90a80$@edu.cn> <82939598-D4E1-418F-B661-D6E5A7A4AB09@lucidvision.com> In-Reply-To: <82939598-D4E1-418F-B661-D6E5A7A4AB09@lucidvision.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A0B0202.4755A95D.0131,ss=1,fgs=0 X-cff-SpamScore: 0(/) X-cff-SpamReport: ----- ----- Message is unknown to the spam scanner. X-cff-LastScanner: footer Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: b280b4db656c3ca28dd62e5e0b03daa8 Tom, Thomas Nadeau wrote: > > > After reading this draft, I have some questions/comments. > > 1) Overall, I am concerned that the definition of a new TLV and > these procedures represent > what amounts to a laying violation did mean to say layering violation ??? /Loa and ask that the ADs take a > look at this > approach closely. This is similar to the now-rejected approach > that was proposed > in the l2vpn WG about munging CFM + PWs. To my reading, this is > essentially > the same thing. If you want to run CFM, run it natively over the > ethernet interfaces and > have no regard for the underlying topology (GMPLS, PWs, etc...) > otherwise you > will be creating a mess for implementations and interoperability. > > 2) The introductory sections in this draft give a lot of discussion > about fast fault detection. I > am puzzled by this given that GMPLS networks tend to run over > quickly self-healing > optical infrastructures. Is it therefore truly necessary to > motivate this work by > requiring fast CFMs? > > 3) This document does not cover E-LMI. Why not? > > For the purposes of this document, we only discuss Ethernet OAM > [IEEE-CFM] aspects that are relevant for the connectivity > monitoring > of bidirectional point-to-point PBB-TE connections. > > 4) Is this the right place to define this document or should this be > done in GELS? > > 5) In section 2 you make the following statement: > > 2. GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions > > To simplify the configuration of connectivity monitoring, > when an > Ethernet LSP is signalled the associated MEPs should be > automatically > established. Further more, GMPLS signalling should be able to > enable/disable connectivity monitoring of a particular > Ethernet LSP. > > > To my point in #1 above, you should use the native CFM > functionality over the ethernet interface and signal > those capabilities to the bridges at both ends using the IEEE > CFM signaling procedures (when and if they > are created). If you want to test the underlying GMPLS LSP(s), > then you should use some > other mechanism defined for that layer such as the work stated > in draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt > > -- Loa Andersson Principal Networking Architect Acreo AB phone: +46 8 632 77 14 Isafjordsgatan 22 mobile: +46 739 81 21 64 Kista, Sweden email: loa.andersson@acreo.se loa@pi.se This email was Anti Virus checked by Astaro Security Gateway. http://www.astaro.com From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Tue Dec 04 14:43:53 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzdgP-00081h-Bo for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 14:43:53 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzdgO-0005UW-R6 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 14:43:53 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1IzdSV-0003my-D6 for ccamp-data@psg.com; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 19:29:31 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [72.71.250.34] (helo=lucidvision.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1IzdRw-0003kr-EA for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 19:29:15 +0000 Received: from [192.168.1.120] (static-72-71-250-36.cncdnh.fios.verizon.net [72.71.250.36]) by lucidvision.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AF255B617; Tue, 4 Dec 2007 14:29:02 -0500 (EST) Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org, attila.takacs@ericsson.com, balazs.gero@ericsson.com Message-Id: <29EB99D8-42DC-4133-8AFA-DFD9D9FA928F@lucidvision.com> From: Thomas Nadeau To: Loa Andersson In-Reply-To: <4755A9DF.5060809@pi.se> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 14:28:54 -0500 References: <006601c8351d$5a473940$7c01a8c0@your029b8cecfe> <000901c83563$ef430380$cdc90a80$@edu.cn> <82939598-D4E1-418F-B661-D6E5A7A4AB09@lucidvision.com> <4755A9DF.5060809@pi.se> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 1a1bf7677bfe77d8af1ebe0e91045c5b On Dec 4, 2007, at 2:26 PM, Loa Andersson wrote: > Tom, > > Thomas Nadeau wrote: >> >> >> After reading this draft, I have some questions/comments. >> >> 1) Overall, I am concerned that the definition of a new TLV and >> these procedures represent >> what amounts to a laying violation > > did mean to say layering violation ??? Yep. Typing too fast! *) --Tom > > > /Loa > > and ask that the ADs take a >> look at this >> approach closely. This is similar to the now-rejected approach >> that was proposed >> in the l2vpn WG about munging CFM + PWs. To my reading, >> this is >> essentially >> the same thing. If you want to run CFM, run it natively over >> the >> ethernet interfaces and >> have no regard for the underlying topology (GMPLS, PWs, >> etc...) >> otherwise you >> will be creating a mess for implementations and >> interoperability. >> >> 2) The introductory sections in this draft give a lot of >> discussion >> about fast fault detection. I >> am puzzled by this given that GMPLS networks tend to run over >> quickly self-healing >> optical infrastructures. Is it therefore truly necessary to >> motivate this work by >> requiring fast CFMs? >> >> 3) This document does not cover E-LMI. Why not? >> >> For the purposes of this document, we only discuss Ethernet >> OAM >> [IEEE-CFM] aspects that are relevant for the connectivity >> monitoring >> of bidirectional point-to-point PBB-TE connections. >> >> 4) Is this the right place to define this document or should >> this be >> done in GELS? >> >> 5) In section 2 you make the following statement: >> >> 2. GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions >> >> To simplify the configuration of connectivity monitoring, >> when an >> Ethernet LSP is signalled the associated MEPs should be >> automatically >> established. Further more, GMPLS signalling should be >> able to >> enable/disable connectivity monitoring of a particular >> Ethernet LSP. >> >> >> To my point in #1 above, you should use the native CFM >> functionality over the ethernet interface and signal >> those capabilities to the bridges at both ends using the IEEE >> CFM signaling procedures (when and if they >> are created). If you want to test the underlying GMPLS >> LSP(s), >> then you should use some >> other mechanism defined for that layer such as the work stated >> in draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt >> >> > > > -- > Loa Andersson > > Principal Networking Architect > Acreo AB phone: +46 8 632 77 14 > Isafjordsgatan 22 mobile: +46 739 81 21 64 > Kista, Sweden email: loa.andersson@acreo.se > loa@pi.se > > This email was Anti Virus checked by Astaro Security Gateway. http://www.astaro.com > > From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Tue Dec 04 14:46:34 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Izdj0-0002CK-N1 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 14:46:34 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Izdiz-0005i4-Bi for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 14:46:34 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1IzdTD-0003tE-Do for ccamp-data@psg.com; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 19:30:15 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE, RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [72.71.250.34] (helo=lucidvision.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1IzdSz-0003qW-EU for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 19:30:09 +0000 Received: from [192.168.1.120] (static-72-71-250-36.cncdnh.fios.verizon.net [72.71.250.36]) by lucidvision.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AA2F5B63D; Tue, 4 Dec 2007 14:30:09 -0500 (EST) Cc: , Message-Id: <7BEFF760-FEC4-4E10-974F-21386B048B13@lucidvision.com> From: Thomas Nadeau To: "Attila Takacs" In-Reply-To: <53CCFDD6E346CB43994852666C210E9102624606@esealmw116.eemea.ericsson.se> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-25--553931354 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 14:30:00 -0500 References: <006601c8351d$5a473940$7c01a8c0@your029b8cecfe> <000901c83563$ef430380$cdc90a80$@edu.cn> <82939598-D4E1-418F-B661-D6E5A7A4AB09@lucidvision.com> <53CCFDD6E346CB43994852666C210E9102624606@esealmw116.eemea.ericsson.se> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: a5d64674af3d12893846a18a44c07b83 --Apple-Mail-25--553931354 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Dec 4, 2007, at 1:51 PM, Attila Takacs wrote: > Hi Thomas, > > Thank you for the comments! > Please see answers inline. > > Best regards, > Attila > > From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com] > Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 2:58 PM > To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org > Cc: Attila Takacs; balazs.gero@ericsson.com > Subject: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt > > > > After reading this draft, I have some questions/comments. > > 1) Overall, I am concerned that the definition of a new TLV and > these procedures represent > what amounts to a laying violation and ask that the ADs take a look > at this > approach closely. This is similar to the now-rejected approach that > was proposed > in the l2vpn WG about munging CFM + PWs. To my reading, this is > essentially > the same thing. If you want to run CFM, run it natively over the > ethernet interfaces and > have no regard for the underlying topology (GMPLS, PWs, etc...) > otherwise you > will be creating a mess for implementations and interoperability. > The application of the draft is exactly for what you are calling > out: when CFM is run natively over the Ethernet interfaces. The > document focuses on GELS and Ethernet LSPs. That is, to establish > CFM entities for GMPLS controlled Ethernet LSPs. Hence, I think > there is no layer violation issue. This solution specifically only works for GMPLS ethernet LSPs, right? What do I do if I want to set up MPLS ethernet LSPs (i.e.: PWs) and do CFM over those? Oh, that is a different solution, right? Then what do I do if I want to run CFM over some new type of ethernet LSP in the future? More protocol hacks? The point is to use CFM over an ethernet interface without the underlying layers knowing. This is good networking architecture design, that simplifies implementations and makes them more robust, as well as makes using them operationally much easier. > 2) The introductory sections in this draft give a lot of discussion > about fast fault detection. I > am puzzled by this given that GMPLS networks tend to run over > quickly self-healing > optical infrastructures. Is it therefore truly necessary to motivate > this work by > requiring fast CFMs? > It is right that frequent CCMs are not required if the layers below > Ethernet handle protection. However, the ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs > where Ethernet is not just a single hop above a transport LSP. In > this case Ethernet layer (for clarity GELS) may provide protection > for Ethernet LSPs. In any case, the whole point of the ID is to > allow for the appropriate configuration of CFM for Ethernet LSPs > with GMPLS. > > 3) This document does not cover E-LMI. Why not? > E-LMI is run over the MEF UNI. The ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs > within a network. > > > For the purposes of this document, we only discuss Ethernet OAM > [IEEE-CFM] aspects that are relevant for the connectivity > monitoring > of bidirectional point-to-point PBB-TE connections. > > 4) Is this the right place to define this document or should this be > done in GELS? > Well, GELS is done in CCAMP...this seems to be the right place. > > > 5) In section 2 you make the following statement: > > 2. GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions > > To simplify the configuration of connectivity monitoring, when an > Ethernet LSP is signalled the associated MEPs should be > automatically > established. Further more, GMPLS signalling should be able to > enable/disable connectivity monitoring of a particular Ethernet LSP. > > > To my point in #1 above, you should use the native CFM functionality > over the ethernet interface and signal > those capabilities to the bridges at both ends using the IEEE CFM > signaling procedures (when and if they > are created). If you want to test the underlying GMPLS LSP(s), then > you should use some > other mechanism defined for that layer such as the work stated in > draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt > See the note to your point #1. There is no relation to the gmpls-LSP- > ping draft. The point I am making is that perhaps it should. --Tom > > > --Apple-Mail-25--553931354 Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Dec 4, 2007, = at 1:51 PM, Attila Takacs wrote:

Hi Thomas,
 
Thank you for the comments!
=
Please see answers = inline.
 
=
Best = regards,
Attila

From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com= ]
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 2:58 PM
To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Cc: = Attila Takacs; balazs.gero@ericsson.com
<= b>Subject: = draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

=


=
After reading this draft, I have some = questions/comments.
=

=
1) = Overall, I am concerned that the definition of a new TLV and = these procedures represent 
what amounts = to a laying violation and ask that the ADs take a look at this
approach = closely. This is similar to the now-rejected approach that was = proposed
in the l2vpn = WG about munging CFM + PWs.  To my reading, this is essentially
the same = thing. If you want to run CFM, run it natively over the ethernet = interfaces and
have no regard for the underlying = topology (GMPLS, PWs, etc...) otherwise you 
will be = creating a mess for implementations and interoperability.  
The = application of the draft is exactly for what you are calling out: = when CFM is run natively over the Ethernet interfaces. The document = focuses on GELS and Ethernet LSPs. That is, to establish CFM = entities for GMPLS controlled Ethernet LSPs. Hence, = I = think there is no layer violation = issue.

This solution specifically only = works for GMPLS ethernet LSPs, right?  
What do I do if I = want to set up MPLS ethernet LSPs (i.e.: PWs) and do CFM over = those? Oh,
that is a different solution, right?  Then = what do I do if I want to run CFM over some new type = of
ethernet LSP in the future? More protocol hacks?  The = point is to use CFM over an ethernet interface
without the = underlying layers knowing. This is good networking architecture design, = that simplifies
implementations and makes them more robust, as = well as makes using them operationally = much
easier. 
2) The introductory = sections in this draft give a lot of discussion about fast fault = detection. I
am puzzled by = this given that GMPLS networks tend to run over quickly = self-healing
optical = infrastructures. Is it therefore truly necessary to motivate = this work by
requiring = fast CFMs?
=
It is right that frequent CCMs are not = required if the layers below Ethernet handle protection. However, the ID = focuses on Ethernet LSPs where Ethernet is not just a single = hop above a transport LSP. In this case Ethernet layer = (for clarity GELS) may provide protection for Ethernet LSPs. In any = case,  the whole point of the ID is to allow for the appropriate = configuration of CFM for Ethernet LSPs with GMPLS.
=

3) This document does not cover = E-LMI. Why not?
E-LMI is run over the MEF UNI. The ID focuses on = Ethernet LSPs within a network.
 

=
For the purposes of = this document, we only discuss Ethernet OAM
   [IEEE-CFM] aspects that = are relevant for the connectivity monitoring
   of bidirectional = point-to-point PBB-TE connections.  

4) Is this the right place to define = this document or should this be done in GELS?
Well, GELS is done in CCAMP...this seems to be the right = place.
 

5)   In section 2 you make the = following statement:

2.  GMPLS RSVP-TE = Extensions

    To simplify the configuration of connectivity = monitoring, when an
   Ethernet LSP is signalled the associated MEPs = should be automatically
    established.  Further more, GMPLS signalling = should be able to
  enable/disable connectivity monitoring of a = particular Ethernet LSP.


To my point in #1 above, you should = use the native CFM functionality over the ethernet interface and = signal
those = capabilities to the bridges at both ends using the IEEE CFM signaling = procedures (when and if they
=
are created). =  If you want to test the underlying GMPLS LSP(s), then you should = use some
other = mechanism defined for that layer such as the work stated in draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt
See the note to your = point #1. There is no relation to the gmpls-LSP-ping = draft. 

The point = I am making is that perhaps it should.

--Tom



 
 

= --Apple-Mail-25--553931354-- From ccampb4753@aol.com Tue Dec 04 15:34:45 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzeTd-0003tj-OR for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 15:34:45 -0500 Received: from pool-71-183-233-163.nycmny.fios.verizon.net ([71.183.233.163]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzeTd-0003uc-DW for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 15:34:45 -0500 X-Originating-IP: [144.7.552.303] Received: (qmail 7600 by uid 481); Tue, 4 Dec 2007 03:34:45 -0500 Message-Id: To: Subject: Bonus Products, great deals & much more! From: Bettye Dale MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0a7aa2e6e558383d84476dc338324fab Parade.com Newsletter
These are our lowest prices of the year — but they won't last long. So take advantage of these incredible savings now and stock up on all your favorite products. SAVE BIG on holiday gifts too with gift subscriptions for everyone on your list — family, friends and co-workers. At just $1 these are terrific as main gifts or stocking stuffers. Click here to start shopping now and don't forget to pass this offer along and let everyone know what a great deal you've found. Happy saving!

Limited-time offer...Act now!

Gift

Get the world's greatest fitness, and sex advice

Gift

5 WAYS TO INCREASE YOUR MANPOWER CLICK HERE

 

HOT HOLIDAY DEALS OF THE WEEK

Gift

Find out more at http://www.summerloud.com

This message contains images. If you cannot see the images click here.

Products Available while quantities last. For current store locations click here

This email was sent to: ccamp-archive@ietf.org
 
From Reigohfds@CASHMERE.COM.HK Tue Dec 04 15:55:12 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzenQ-0003Tk-Q8 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 15:55:12 -0500 Received: from host219-98-dynamic.2-87-r.retail.telecomitalia.it ([87.2.98.219]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzenP-0005NU-DH for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 15:55:11 -0500 Received: from matteo-ddd7cfa5 by CASHMERE.COM.HK with ASMTP id 93B2E8C3 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2007 21:55:45 +0100 Received: from matteo-ddd7cfa5 ([122.149.112.141]) by CASHMERE.COM.HK with ESMTP id 8BD14BD29C14 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2007 21:55:45 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 21:55:11 +0100 From: "Reigo hfds" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org Subject: keirojou Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 4.5 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 08e48e05374109708c00c6208b534009 Allways wondered why hot girls don't look at you? Maybe it's not your
pimples, but your little "friend"? Look up here. http://www.osiolkek.com/
From MinervashoestringBoykin@lohud.com Tue Dec 04 18:46:45 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzhTR-0003nw-TN for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 18:46:45 -0500 Received: from c-76-120-176-71.hsd1.pa.comcast.net ([76.120.176.71] helo=gateway.belkin) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzhTR-0003Rc-Fg for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 18:46:45 -0500 Received: from luxuriate by lohud.com with SMTP id S3YSfkPjc7 for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2007 18:46:32 +0500 From: "Rhoda Duvall" To: Cc: , Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IziS9-0003U5-9u for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 19:49:30 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IziS8-0007Kj-IV for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 19:49:29 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1IziDa-0008Qv-Oi for ccamp-data@psg.com; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 00:34:26 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE, RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [193.180.251.62] (helo=mailgw4.ericsson.se) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1IziCv-0008NY-RF for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 00:34:04 +0000 Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 18D5121171; Wed, 5 Dec 2007 01:33:44 +0100 (CET) X-AuditID: c1b4fb3e-afea1bb00000459d-5c-4755f1e7de4e Received: from esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.254.123]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id E69C82024F; Wed, 5 Dec 2007 01:33:43 +0100 (CET) Received: from esealmw110.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.200.78]) by esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 5 Dec 2007 01:33:43 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C836D6.7D4FEF53" Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 01:33:41 +0100 Message-ID: <0428AC48A879ED46A94F39D5665DF684DF2AB9@esealmw110.eemea.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <7BEFF760-FEC4-4E10-974F-21386B048B13@lucidvision.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Thread-Index: Acg2rlSmo3V62q2PQumJpMz52jLMPgAJwcxw From: "Diego Caviglia" To: "Thomas Nadeau" , "Attila Takacs" Cc: , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Dec 2007 00:33:43.0681 (UTC) FILETIME=[7D84B710:01C836D6] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e994a10de72e6b23b30921d848856e73 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C836D6.7D4FEF53 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Thomas, My understanding of the ID was that RSVP-TE can be used = to 'piggyback' CFM set-up, otherwise the scenario is: usage of RSVP-TE = to set-up the LSP and NMS (meaning everything that is not control plane) = to enable to CFM for the LSP. =20 From your comment I see that you're not happy with the fact the ID is so = technology specific am I right? If yes do you agree with the fact that = could be useful in general to use the same signaling 'session' to set-up = the LSP and to enable the CFM? =20 Best Regards Diego =20 ________________________________ From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On = Behalf Of Thomas Nadeau Sent: marted=EC 4 dicembre 2007 11.30 To: Attila Takacs Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt =20 =20 On Dec 4, 2007, at 1:51 PM, Attila Takacs wrote: Hi Thomas, =20 Thank you for the comments! Please see answers inline. =20 Best regards, Attila =20 =09 ________________________________ From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com]=20 Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 2:58 PM To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Cc: Attila Takacs; balazs.gero@ericsson.com Subject: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt =20 =20 After reading this draft, I have some questions/comments. =20 1) Overall, I am concerned that the definition of a new TLV and these = procedures represent=20 what amounts to a laying violation and ask that the ADs take a look at = this approach closely. This is similar to the now-rejected approach that was = proposed in the l2vpn WG about munging CFM + PWs. To my reading, this is = essentially the same thing. If you want to run CFM, run it natively over the = ethernet interfaces and have no regard for the underlying topology (GMPLS, PWs, etc...) = otherwise you=20 will be creating a mess for implementations and interoperability. =20 The application of the draft is exactly for what you are calling out: = when CFM is run natively over the Ethernet interfaces. The document = focuses on GELS and Ethernet LSPs. That is, to establish CFM entities = for GMPLS controlled Ethernet LSPs. Hence, I think there is no layer = violation issue. =20 This solution specifically only works for GMPLS ethernet LSPs, = right? =20 What do I do if I want to set up MPLS ethernet LSPs (i.e.: PWs) and do = CFM over those? Oh, that is a different solution, right? Then what do I do if I want to run = CFM over some new type of ethernet LSP in the future? More protocol hacks? The point is to use = CFM over an ethernet interface without the underlying layers knowing. This is good networking = architecture design, that simplifies implementations and makes them more robust, as well as makes using them = operationally much easier.=20 2) The introductory sections in this draft give a lot of discussion = about fast fault detection. I am puzzled by this given that GMPLS networks tend to run over quickly = self-healing optical infrastructures. Is it therefore truly necessary to motivate = this work by requiring fast CFMs? It is right that frequent CCMs are not required if the layers below = Ethernet handle protection. However, the ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs = where Ethernet is not just a single hop above a transport LSP. In this = case Ethernet layer (for clarity GELS) may provide protection for = Ethernet LSPs. In any case, the whole point of the ID is to allow for = the appropriate configuration of CFM for Ethernet LSPs with GMPLS. =20 3) This document does not cover E-LMI. Why not? E-LMI is run over the MEF UNI. The ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs within a = network. =20 =20 For the purposes of this document, we only discuss Ethernet OAM [IEEE-CFM] aspects that are relevant for the connectivity = monitoring of bidirectional point-to-point PBB-TE connections. =20 =20 4) Is this the right place to define this document or should this be = done in GELS? Well, GELS is done in CCAMP...this seems to be the right place. =20 =20 5) In section 2 you make the following statement: =20 2. GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions =20 To simplify the configuration of connectivity monitoring, when an Ethernet LSP is signalled the associated MEPs should be = automatically established. Further more, GMPLS signalling should be able to enable/disable connectivity monitoring of a particular Ethernet LSP. =20 =20 To my point in #1 above, you should use the native CFM functionality = over the ethernet interface and signal those capabilities to the bridges at both ends using the IEEE CFM = signaling procedures (when and if they are created). If you want to test the underlying GMPLS LSP(s), then = you should use some other mechanism defined for that layer such as the work stated in = draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt See the note to your point #1. There is no relation to the = gmpls-LSP-ping draft.=20 =20 The point I am making is that perhaps it should. =20 --Tom =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C836D6.7D4FEF53 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi = Thomas,

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0 My understanding of the ID was that RSVP-TE can be used to ‘piggyback’ CFM set-up, otherwise the scenario is: usage of RSVP-TE to set-up the LSP and NMS = (meaning everything that is not control plane) to enable to CFM for the = LSP.

 

From your comment I see that = you’re not happy with the fact the ID is so technology specific am I right? = =A0If yes do you agree with the fact that could be useful in general to use the same = signaling ‘session’ to set-up the LSP and to enable the = CFM?

 

Best = Regards


Diego

 

From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Nadeau
Sent: marted=EC 4 = dicembre 2007 11.30
To: Attila Takacs
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com
Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

 

 

On Dec 4, 2007, at 1:51 PM, Attila Takacs = wrote:



Hi = Thomas,

 

Thank you for the = comments!

Please see answers = inline.

 

Best regards,
Attila

 

From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December = 04, 2007 2:58 PM
To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Cc: Attila Takacs; balazs.gero@ericsson.com
= Subject: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

 

 

After reading this draft, I have some = questions/comments.

 

1) Overall, I am concerned that the definition of a new TLV = and these procedures represent 

what amounts to a laying violation and ask that the ADs take a = look at this

approach closely. This is similar to the now-rejected approach = that was proposed

in the l2vpn WG about munging CFM + PWs.  To my reading, = this is essentially

the same thing. If you want to run CFM, run it natively over the ethernet interfaces and

have no regard for the underlying topology (GMPLS, PWs, etc...) otherwise you 

will be creating a mess for implementations and = interoperability.  

The application of the draft = is exactly for what you are calling out: when CFM is run natively over the Ethernet interfaces. The document focuses on GELS and Ethernet = LSPs. That is, to establish CFM entities for GMPLS controlled Ethernet = LSPs. Hence, I think there is no layer violation issue.

 

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 = This solution specifically only works for GMPLS ethernet LSPs, right? =  

What do I do if I want to set up MPLS ethernet LSPs (i.e.: PWs) and do CFM over those? Oh,

that is a different solution, right?  Then what do I do if = I want to run CFM over some new type of

ethernet LSP in the future? More protocol hacks?  The point = is to use CFM over an ethernet interface

without the underlying layers knowing. This is good networking architecture design, that simplifies

implementations and makes them more robust, as well as makes = using them operationally much

easier. 

2) The introductory sections in this draft give a lot of discussion about fast fault detection. I

am puzzled by this given that GMPLS networks tend to run over = quickly self-healing

optical infrastructures. Is it = therefore truly necessary to motivate this work by

requiring fast CFMs?

It is right that frequent CCMs are = not required if the layers below Ethernet handle protection. However, the ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs where Ethernet is not just a single hop above a transport LSP. In this case Ethernet layer = (for clarity GELS) may provide protection for Ethernet LSPs. In any = case,  the whole point of the ID is to allow for the appropriate configuration = of CFM for Ethernet LSPs with GMPLS.

 

3) This document does not cover E-LMI. Why = not?

E-LMI is run over the MEF UNI. = The ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs within a network.

 

 

For the = purposes of this document, we only discuss Ethernet = OAM

   [IEEE-CFM] aspects that are relevant = for the connectivity monitoring

   of bidirectional point-to-point = PBB-TE connections.  

 

4) Is this the right place to define this = document or should this be done in GELS?

Well, GELS is done in CCAMP...this = seems to be the right place.

 

 

5)   In section 2 you make the following = statement:

 

2.  GMPLS RSVP-TE = Extensions

 

    = To simplify the configuration of connectivity monitoring, when = an

   Ethernet LSP is signalled the = associated MEPs should be automatically

    established.  Further more, GMPLS signalling should be able = to

  enable/disable connectivity = monitoring of a particular Ethernet LSP.

 

 

To my point in #1 above, you should use the = native CFM functionality over the ethernet interface and = signal

those capabilities to the bridges at both ends = using the IEEE CFM signaling procedures (when and if = they

are created).  If you want to test the = underlying GMPLS LSP(s), then you should use some

other mechanism defined for that layer such as = the work stated in draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt<= /span>=

See the note to your point #1. = There is no relation to the gmpls-LSP-ping = draft. =

 

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 = The point I am making is that perhaps it should.

 

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 = --Tom

 

 

 

 

 

 

------_=_NextPart_001_01C836D6.7D4FEF53-- From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Tue Dec 04 20:36:00 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzjBA-0004UM-US for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 20:36:00 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzjB9-0006G3-0S for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 20:36:00 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1IzivL-000CfY-4L for ccamp-data@psg.com; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 01:19:39 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE, RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [72.71.250.34] (helo=lucidvision.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Iziun-000CcF-Pt for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 01:19:25 +0000 Received: from [192.168.1.120] (static-72-71-250-36.cncdnh.fios.verizon.net [72.71.250.36]) by lucidvision.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2413B5BADF; Tue, 4 Dec 2007 20:19:13 -0500 (EST) Cc: "Attila Takacs" , , Message-Id: <238388FD-E9A8-47B3-A52D-8DBFBDFE33DB@lucidvision.com> From: Thomas Nadeau To: "Diego Caviglia" In-Reply-To: <0428AC48A879ED46A94F39D5665DF684DF2AB9@esealmw110.eemea.ericsson.se> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-28--532988434 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 20:19:03 -0500 References: <0428AC48A879ED46A94F39D5665DF684DF2AB9@esealmw110.eemea.ericsson.se> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 0489daa2bca46f53f2cc9214d1b54371 --Apple-Mail-28--532988434 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Dec 4, 2007, at 7:33 PM, Diego Caviglia wrote: > Hi Thomas, > My understanding of the ID was that RSVP-TE can be =20= > used to =91piggyback=92 CFM set-up, otherwise the scenario is: usage = of =20 > RSVP-TE to set-up the LSP and NMS (meaning everything that is not =20 > control plane) to enable to CFM for the LSP. As I understand it, the IEEE is working on set-up of CFM (and = MEPs), =20 as are some vendors I know. *) This to me seems like the right way to do this. > =46rom your comment I see that you=92re not happy with the fact the ID = =20 > is so technology specific am I right? Precisely; its gluing CFM to RSVP-TE/GMPLS as a transport. > If yes do you agree with the fact that could be useful in general to =20= > use the same signaling =91session=92 to set-up the LSP and to enable = the =20 > CFM? No, I do not agree. Again, if CFM is to be set-up e2e, let the = IEEE =20 define this. Leave GMPLS to CCAMP. --Tom > Best Regards > > Diego > > From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On =20= > Behalf Of Thomas Nadeau > Sent: marted=EC 4 dicembre 2007 11.30 > To: Attila Takacs > Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com > Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt > > > On Dec 4, 2007, at 1:51 PM, Attila Takacs wrote: > > > Hi Thomas, > > Thank you for the comments! > Please see answers inline. > > Best regards, > Attila > > From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com] > Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 2:58 PM > To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org > Cc: Attila Takacs; balazs.gero@ericsson.com > Subject: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt > > > After reading this draft, I have some questions/comments. > > 1) Overall, I am concerned that the definition of a new TLV and =20 > these procedures represent > what amounts to a laying violation and ask that the ADs take a look =20= > at this > approach closely. This is similar to the now-rejected approach that =20= > was proposed > in the l2vpn WG about munging CFM + PWs. To my reading, this is =20 > essentially > the same thing. If you want to run CFM, run it natively over the =20 > ethernet interfaces and > have no regard for the underlying topology (GMPLS, PWs, etc...) =20 > otherwise you > will be creating a mess for implementations and interoperability. > The application of the draft is exactly for what you are calling =20 > out: when CFM is run natively over the Ethernet interfaces. The =20 > document focuses on GELS and Ethernet LSPs. That is, to establish =20 > CFM entities for GMPLS controlled Ethernet LSPs. Hence, I think =20 > there is no layer violation issue. > > This solution specifically only works for GMPLS ethernet =20 > LSPs, right? > What do I do if I want to set up MPLS ethernet LSPs (i.e.: PWs) and =20= > do CFM over those? Oh, > that is a different solution, right? Then what do I do if I want to =20= > run CFM over some new type of > ethernet LSP in the future? More protocol hacks? The point is to =20 > use CFM over an ethernet interface > without the underlying layers knowing. This is good networking =20 > architecture design, that simplifies > implementations and makes them more robust, as well as makes using =20 > them operationally much > easier. >> 2) The introductory sections in this draft give a lot of discussion =20= >> about fast fault detection. I >> am puzzled by this given that GMPLS networks tend to run over =20 >> quickly self-healing >> optical infrastructures. Is it therefore truly necessary to =20 >> motivate this work by >> requiring fast CFMs? >> It is right that frequent CCMs are not required if the layers below =20= >> Ethernet handle protection. However, the ID focuses on Ethernet =20 >> LSPs where Ethernet is not just a single hop above a transport LSP. =20= >> In this case Ethernet layer (for clarity GELS) may provide =20 >> protection for Ethernet LSPs. In any case, the whole point of the =20= >> ID is to allow for the appropriate configuration of CFM for =20 >> Ethernet LSPs with GMPLS. >> >> 3) This document does not cover E-LMI. Why not? >> E-LMI is run over the MEF UNI. The ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs =20 >> within a network. >> >> >> For the purposes of this document, we only discuss Ethernet OAM >> [IEEE-CFM] aspects that are relevant for the connectivity =20 >> monitoring >> of bidirectional point-to-point PBB-TE connections. >> >> 4) Is this the right place to define this document or should this =20 >> be done in GELS? >> Well, GELS is done in CCAMP...this seems to be the right place. >> >> >> 5) In section 2 you make the following statement: >> >> 2. GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions >> >> To simplify the configuration of connectivity monitoring, when an >> Ethernet LSP is signalled the associated MEPs should be =20 >> automatically >> established. Further more, GMPLS signalling should be able to >> enable/disable connectivity monitoring of a particular Ethernet =20 >> LSP. >> >> >> To my point in #1 above, you should use the native CFM =20 >> functionality over the ethernet interface and signal >> those capabilities to the bridges at both ends using the IEEE CFM =20 >> signaling procedures (when and if they >> are created). If you want to test the underlying GMPLS LSP(s), =20 >> then you should use some >> other mechanism defined for that layer such as the work stated in =20 >> draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt >> See the note to your point #1. There is no relation to the gmpls-=20 >> LSP-ping draft. > > The point I am making is that perhaps it should. > > --Tom > > >> >> >> > > --Apple-Mail-28--532988434 Content-Type: text/html; charset=WINDOWS-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Dec 4, 2007, = at 7:33 PM, Diego Caviglia wrote:

Hi = Thomas,
As I understand it, the IEEE is = working on set-up of CFM (and MEPs), as are some vendors I know. = *)
This to me seems like the right way to do = this.

=46rom your comment I see that you=92re = not happy with the fact the ID is so technology specific am I right? =  

= Precisely; its gluing CFM to RSVP-TE/GMPLS as a = transport. 

If yes do you = agree with the fact that could be useful in general to use the same = signaling =91session=92 to set-up the LSP and to enable the = CFM?

No, I do not agree.  Again, = if CFM is to be set-up e2e, let the IEEE define this. Leave GMPLS to = CCAMP.

= --Tom



Best = Regards

Diego
From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org = [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas = Nadeau
Sent: marted=EC 4 dicembre 2007 = 11.30
To: Attila Takacs
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com
Subject: Re: = draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt
 
On Dec 4, = 2007, at 1:51 PM, Attila Takacs = wrote:
Hi = Thomas,
Thank = you for the comments!
Please see = answers inline.
Best = regards,
Attila
 Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 = 2:58 PM
To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Cc: Attila Takacs; balazs.gero@ericsson.com
Subject: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-et= h-oam-ext-00.txt
After reading this draft, I have some = questions/comments.
1) Overall, I am concerned that the = definition of a new TLV and these procedures = represent 
what amounts to a laying violation and ask = that the ADs take a look at = this
approach = closely. This is similar to the now-rejected approach that was = proposed
in the l2vpn WG about munging CFM + PWs. =  To my reading, this is = essentially
the same thing. If you want to run CFM, run = it natively over the ethernet interfaces = and
have no = regard for the underlying topology (GMPLS, PWs, etc...) otherwise = you 
will be creating a mess for implementations = and interoperability. The = application of the draft is exactly for what you are calling out: = when CFM is run natively over the Ethernet interfaces. The document = focuses on GELS and Ethernet LSPs. That is, to establish CFM = entities for GMPLS controlled Ethernet LSPs. Hence, I think there = is no layer violation = issue.
 This = solution specifically only works for GMPLS ethernet LSPs, right? =  
What do I do if I want to = set up MPLS ethernet LSPs (i.e.: PWs) and do CFM over those? = Oh,
that is a = different solution, right?  Then what do I do if I want to run CFM = over some new type of
ethernet LSP in the future? More protocol = hacks?  The point is to use CFM over an ethernet = interface
without the underlying layers knowing. This = is good networking architecture design, that = simplifies
implementations and makes them more robust, = as well as makes using them operationally = much
2) The introductory sections in this = draft give a lot of discussion about fast fault detection. = I
am puzzled by = this given that GMPLS networks tend to run over quickly = self-healing
optical infrastructures. Is it = therefore truly necessary to motivate this work = by
requiring = fast CFMs?
It is right = that frequent CCMs are not required if the layers below Ethernet handle = protection. However, the ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs where Ethernet = is not just a single hop above a transport LSP. In this = case Ethernet layer (for clarity GELS) may provide protection for = Ethernet LSPs. In any case,  the whole point of the ID is to = allow for the appropriate configuration of CFM for Ethernet LSPs with = GMPLS.
3) This document does not = cover E-LMI. Why = not?
E-LMI is = run over the MEF UNI. The ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs within a = network.
For the purposes of this = document, we only discuss Ethernet = OAM
   [IEEE-CFM] aspects that are = relevant for the connectivity = monitoring
   of bidirectional = point-to-point PBB-TE connections. =  
 
4) Is this the right place to define this = document or should this be done in = GELS?
Well, GELS = is done in CCAMP...this seems to be the right = place.
5)   In section 2 you make the = following statement:
2.  GMPLS RSVP-TE = Extensions
    To simplify = the configuration of connectivity monitoring, when = an
   Ethernet LSP is signalled the associated MEPs = should be automatically
    = established.  Further more, GMPLS signalling should be able = to
  enable/disable connectivity monitoring of a = particular Ethernet LSP.
To my point in #1 above, you should use = the native CFM functionality over the ethernet interface and = signal
those capabilities to the bridges at both ends using the = IEEE CFM signaling procedures (when and if = they
are created).  If you want to test the underlying = GMPLS LSP(s), then you should use = some
other mechanism defined for that layer such as the work = stated in See the = note to your point #1. There is no relation to the = gmpls-LSP-ping draft. 
 The = point I am making is that perhaps it = should.
 --Tom
 
Subject: vadsigaa Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 1.1 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 8ac499381112328dd60aea5b1ff596ea greeting ccamp-archive No surgery! Enlarge your PE by simply taking our new preparation! http://desertcentury.com Karst Sarraf From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Tue Dec 04 21:19:55 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Izjrf-0002vv-Di for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 21:19:55 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Izjrd-00007o-CH for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 21:19:55 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Izjbx-000HAS-Vn for ccamp-data@psg.com; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 02:03:41 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE, RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [193.180.251.60] (helo=mailgw3.ericsson.se) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Izjbk-000H7H-Rg for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 02:03:35 +0000 Received: from mailgw3.ericsson.se (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mailgw3.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id F3B6F207CB; Wed, 5 Dec 2007 03:03:26 +0100 (CET) X-AuditID: c1b4fb3c-ae794bb0000030cf-25-475606eeee8d Received: from esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.254.123]) by mailgw3.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id D4021204D9; Wed, 5 Dec 2007 03:03:26 +0100 (CET) Received: from esealmw116.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.200.7]) by esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 5 Dec 2007 03:03:26 +0100 x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C836E3.05B15F17" Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 03:03:26 +0100 Message-ID: <53CCFDD6E346CB43994852666C210E9102624609@esealmw116.eemea.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <238388FD-E9A8-47B3-A52D-8DBFBDFE33DB@lucidvision.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Thread-Index: Acg23NTxGvHAwYB1RMusTe1rH8zc1AABNqKA References: <0428AC48A879ED46A94F39D5665DF684DF2AB9@esealmw110.eemea.ericsson.se> <238388FD-E9A8-47B3-A52D-8DBFBDFE33DB@lucidvision.com> From: "Attila Takacs" To: "Thomas Nadeau" , "Diego Caviglia" Cc: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Dec 2007 02:03:26.0722 (UTC) FILETIME=[060F9620:01C836E3] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 840c850cf96ae49b732433f02536564d This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C836E3.05B15F17 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Tom, please see inline. Best regards, Attila ________________________________ From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com]=20 Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 2:19 AM To: Diego Caviglia Cc: Attila Takacs; ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt =09 =09 =09 =09 On Dec 4, 2007, at 7:33 PM, Diego Caviglia wrote: =09 Hi Thomas, My understanding of the ID was that RSVP-TE can be = used to 'piggyback' CFM set-up, otherwise the scenario is: usage of = RSVP-TE to set-up the LSP and NMS (meaning everything that is not = control plane) to enable to CFM for the LSP. =09 =09 As I understand it, the IEEE is working on set-up of CFM (and MEPs), as = are some vendors I know. *) This to me seems like the right way to do this. =20 IEEE specified CFM and MIBs to setup CFM.=20 Diego's summary is correct: one can use an NMS or a control plane to = setup the data plane. In this case we propose to use GMPLS to setup the = data plane: both forwarding + OAM. =09 =09 From your comment I see that you're not happy with the fact the ID is = so technology specific am I right? =20 =09 =09 Precisely; its gluing CFM to RSVP-TE/GMPLS as a transport.=20 =09 =09 I do not see your point with gluing. What do you mean by "as transport"? = GMPLS is just controlling OAM, CFM is run solely in the data plane. =20 =09 If yes do you agree with the fact that could be useful in general to = use the same signaling 'session' to set-up the LSP and to enable the = CFM? =09 =09 No, I do not agree. Again, if CFM is to be set-up e2e, let the IEEE = define this. Leave GMPLS to CCAMP. =09 =20 =20 Sorry, I cannot follow. =20 =20 =20 =20 =09 =09 --Tom =09 =09 =09 =09 =09 =09 =09 Best Regards =09 Diego =09 =09 ________________________________ From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On = Behalf Of Thomas Nadeau Sent: marted=EC 4 dicembre 2007 11.30 To: Attila Takacs Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt =09 =09 On Dec 4, 2007, at 1:51 PM, Attila Takacs wrote: =09 =09 =09 Hi Thomas, =09 Thank you for the comments! Please see answers inline. =09 Best regards, Attila =09 =09 ________________________________ From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com]=20 Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 2:58 PM To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Cc: Attila Takacs; balazs.gero@ericsson.com Subject: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt =09 =09 After reading this draft, I have some questions/comments. =09 1) Overall, I am concerned that the definition of a new TLV and these = procedures represent=20 what amounts to a laying violation and ask that the ADs take a look = at this approach closely. This is similar to the now-rejected approach that = was proposed in the l2vpn WG about munging CFM + PWs. To my reading, this is = essentially the same thing. If you want to run CFM, run it natively over the = ethernet interfaces and have no regard for the underlying topology (GMPLS, PWs, etc...) = otherwise you=20 will be creating a mess for implementations and interoperability. =20 The application of the draft is exactly for what you are calling out: = when CFM is run natively over the Ethernet interfaces. The document = focuses on GELS and Ethernet LSPs. That is, to establish CFM entities = for GMPLS controlled Ethernet LSPs. Hence, I think there is no layer = violation issue. =09 This solution specifically only works for GMPLS ethernet = LSPs, right? =20 What do I do if I want to set up MPLS ethernet LSPs (i.e.: PWs) and do = CFM over those? Oh, that is a different solution, right? Then what do I do if I want to = run CFM over some new type of ethernet LSP in the future? More protocol hacks? The point is to use = CFM over an ethernet interface without the underlying layers knowing. This is good networking = architecture design, that simplifies implementations and makes them more robust, as well as makes using = them operationally much easier.=20 2) The introductory sections in this draft give a lot of discussion = about fast fault detection. I am puzzled by this given that GMPLS networks tend to run over = quickly self-healing optical infrastructures. Is it therefore truly necessary to motivate = this work by requiring fast CFMs? It is right that frequent CCMs are not required if the layers below = Ethernet handle protection. However, the ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs = where Ethernet is not just a single hop above a transport LSP. In this = case Ethernet layer (for clarity GELS) may provide protection for = Ethernet LSPs. In any case, the whole point of the ID is to allow for = the appropriate configuration of CFM for Ethernet LSPs with GMPLS. =09 3) This document does not cover E-LMI. Why not? E-LMI is run over the MEF UNI. The ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs within = a network. =09 =09 For the purposes of this document, we only discuss Ethernet OAM [IEEE-CFM] aspects that are relevant for the connectivity = monitoring of bidirectional point-to-point PBB-TE connections. =20 =09 4) Is this the right place to define this document or should this be = done in GELS? Well, GELS is done in CCAMP...this seems to be the right place. =09 =09 5) In section 2 you make the following statement: =09 2. GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions =09 To simplify the configuration of connectivity monitoring, when = an Ethernet LSP is signalled the associated MEPs should be = automatically established. Further more, GMPLS signalling should be able to enable/disable connectivity monitoring of a particular Ethernet = LSP. =09 =09 To my point in #1 above, you should use the native CFM functionality = over the ethernet interface and signal those capabilities to the bridges at both ends using the IEEE CFM = signaling procedures (when and if they are created). If you want to test the underlying GMPLS LSP(s), then = you should use some other mechanism defined for that layer such as the work stated in = draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt See the note to your point #1. There is no relation to the = gmpls-LSP-ping draft.=20 =09 The point I am making is that perhaps it should. =09 --Tom =09 =09 =09 =09 =09 =09 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C836E3.05B15F17 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi=20 Tom,
please=20 see inline.
Best=20 regards,
Attila

From: Thomas Nadeau=20 [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December = 05, 2007=20 2:19 AM
To: Diego Caviglia
Cc: Attila Takacs;=20 ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com
Subject: Re:=20 draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt


On Dec 4, 2007, at 7:33 PM, Diego Caviglia wrote:
Hi=20 Thomas,
           =      =20 My understanding of the ID was that RSVP-TE can be used to = =91piggyback=92 CFM=20 set-up, otherwise the scenario is: usage of RSVP-TE to set-up the = LSP and=20 NMS (meaning everything that is not control plane) to enable to CFM = for the=20 LSP.

As I = understand it, the=20 IEEE is working on set-up of CFM (and MEPs), as are some vendors I = know.=20 *)
This to me seems like the right way to do this.
 
IEEE=20 specified CFM and MIBs to setup CFM. 
Diego's summary is correct: one can use an NMS or a = control plane to=20 setup the data plane. In this case we propose to use GMPLS to setup = the=20 data plane: both forwarding + OAM.
From=20 your comment I see that you=92re not happy with the fact the ID is = so=20 technology specific am I right? =  

Precisely; its=20 gluing CFM to RSVP-TE/GMPLS as a transport. 
I do=20 not see your point with gluing. What do you mean by "as transport"? = GMPLS is=20 just controlling OAM, CFM is run solely in the data = plane.
 

If=20 yes do you agree with the fact that could be useful in general to = use the=20 same signaling =91session=92 to set-up the LSP and to enable the=20 CFM?

No, I do not=20 agree.  Again, if CFM is to be set-up e2e, let the IEEE define = this.=20 Leave GMPLS to CCAMP.
 
 
Sorry,=20 I cannot follow.
 
 
 
 
--Tom

 Best=20 Regards

Diego
From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org = [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org<= /A>] On Behalf Of Thomas=20 Nadeau
Sent: marted=EC 4 dicembre 2007 = 11.30
To: Attila Takacs
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com
= Subject: Re:=20 = draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt
On = Dec 4, 2007,=20 at 1:51 PM, Attila Takacs = wrote:


Hi=20 Thomas,
Thank = you for=20 the comments!
Please = see answers=20 inline.
Best=20 regards,
Attila
From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, = 2007 2:58=20 PM
To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Cc: Attila Takacs; balazs.gero@ericsson.com
= Subject: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth= -oam-ext-00.txt
After reading=20 this draft, I have some=20 questions/comments.
1)=20 Overall, I am concerned that the definition of a new TLV and = these=20 procedures represent 
what amounts=20 to a laying violation and ask that the ADs take a look at=20 this
approach=20 closely. This is similar to the now-rejected approach that was=20 proposed
in the l2vpn=20 WG about munging CFM + PWs.  To my reading, this is=20 essentially
the same=20 thing. If you want to run CFM, run it natively over the ethernet=20 interfaces and
have no regard=20 for the underlying topology (GMPLS, PWs, etc...) otherwise=20 you 
will be=20 creating a mess for implementations and=20 interoperability.  
The=20 application of the draft is exactly for what you are calling = out: when=20 CFM is run natively over the Ethernet interfaces. The document = focuses on=20 GELS and Ethernet LSPs. That is, to establish CFM entities = for=20 GMPLS controlled Ethernet LSPs. Hence, I think there is no = layer=20 violation issue.
          This = solution=20 specifically only works for GMPLS ethernet LSPs, right?=20  
What do I do if=20 I want to set up MPLS ethernet LSPs (i.e.: PWs) and do CFM over = those?=20 Oh,
that is a=20 different solution, right?  Then what do I do if I want to run = CFM over=20 some new type of
ethernet LSP in=20 the future? More protocol hacks?  The point is to use CFM over = an=20 ethernet interface
without the=20 underlying layers knowing. This is good networking architecture = design, that=20 simplifies
implementations=20 and makes them more robust, as well as makes using them = operationally=20 much
easier. 
2) The=20 introductory sections in this draft give a lot of discussion = about fast=20 fault detection. I
am puzzled=20 by this given that GMPLS networks tend to run over quickly=20 self-healing
optical=20 infrastructures. Is it therefore truly necessary to = motivate=20 this work by
requiring=20 fast CFMs?
It is = right that=20 frequent CCMs are not required if the layers below Ethernet handle = protection. However, the ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs where = Ethernet=20 is not just a single hop above a transport LSP. In = this=20 case Ethernet layer (for clarity GELS) may provide protection = for=20 Ethernet LSPs. In any case,  the whole point of the ID = is to=20 allow for the appropriate configuration of CFM for Ethernet LSPs = with=20 GMPLS.
3) This=20 document does not cover E-LMI. Why=20 not?
E-LMI = is run over=20 the MEF UNI. The ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs within a=20 network.
For the purposes of this document, we = only=20 discuss Ethernet OAM
   = [IEEE-CFM]=20 aspects that are relevant for the connectivity=20 monitoring
   of = bidirectional point-to-point PBB-TE connections.=20  
4) Is this the = right=20 place to define this document or should this be done in=20 GELS?
Well, = GELS is=20 done in CCAMP...this seems to be the right=20 place.
5)   In = section 2=20 you make the following = statement:
2.  GMPLS = RSVP-TE=20 Extensions
    To = simplify the=20 configuration of connectivity monitoring, when=20 an
   = Ethernet LSP=20 is signalled the associated MEPs should be=20 automatically
   =20 established.  Further more, GMPLS signalling should be able = to
  enable/disable=20 connectivity monitoring of a particular Ethernet=20 LSP.
To my point in = #1 above,=20 you should use the native CFM functionality over the ethernet = interface=20 and signal
those = capabilities to the=20 bridges at both ends using the IEEE CFM signaling procedures = (when and=20 if they
are created). =  If=20 you want to test the underlying GMPLS LSP(s), then you should = use=20 some
other mechanism = defined=20 for that layer such as the work stated = in draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt=
See the = note to your point #1. There is no relation to the=20 gmpls-LSP-ping draft. 
          The = point I am=20 making is that perhaps it should.
          --Tom
=
------_=_NextPart_001_01C836E3.05B15F17-- From mlstable@meikoamerica.com Wed Dec 05 00:09:00 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzmVI-0007N2-Ey; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 00:09:00 -0500 Received: from [189.71.23.204] (helo=18971023204.user.veloxzone.com.br) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzmVH-0002Jt-Dl; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 00:08:59 -0500 Received: from casaf13de200b6 ([87.8.237.83]) by cc1747bdmeikoamerica.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id 61651488442FD for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2007 02:08:47 -0200 Message-ID: <001101c836e3$c506c350$00a8f564@casaf13de200b6> From: each to To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org Subject: my writing Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 02:08:47 -0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000E_01C836E3.C506C350" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.181 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.2869 X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8b30eb7682a596edff707698f4a80f7d This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C836E3.C506C350 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable expressions. For instance, if we were to look at a painting on a beneficial in educating children and adults - making learning As an Interior Design student I have noted what computer programs ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C836E3.C506C350 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

people may conflict and hey, why not allow for that? How? Well

V I 6A G R A - $1.45
C 9I L I S - $2.24
S9 O M A - $0.69
L E6 V I T R A - $3.68
199 Items on S /AL \E Today.

elementary schools. By this integration of digital technology
------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C836E3.C506C350-- From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Wed Dec 05 02:15:21 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzoTZ-0000ia-5f for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 02:15:21 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzoTN-0001oK-Fg for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 02:15:21 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1IzoCl-000F8a-I5 for ccamp-data@psg.com; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 06:57:59 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE, RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [217.32.164.151] (helo=smtp4.smtp.bt.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1IzoCR-000F7A-Fj for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 06:57:49 +0000 Received: from E03MVB2-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net ([193.113.197.109]) by smtp4.smtp.bt.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 5 Dec 2007 06:57:44 +0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C8370C.22930EF6" Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 06:55:15 -0000 Message-ID: <2ECAA42C79676B42AEBAC11229CA7D0C01880C37@E03MVB2-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net> In-Reply-To: <53CCFDD6E346CB43994852666C210E9102624609@esealmw116.eemea.ericsson.se> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Thread-Index: Acg23NTxGvHAwYB1RMusTe1rH8zc1AABNqKAAAj7JuA= From: To: , , Cc: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Dec 2007 06:57:44.0888 (UTC) FILETIME=[2325E380:01C8370C] Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: f526f24f459cc7a00934c463cb2f9eb6 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C8370C.22930EF6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'm puzzled. I read the draft and thought it was excellent. It is = addressing an important operational issue, ie a critical operational OAM = requirement is to ensure that whatever mechanism (MP or CP) is used to = set-up/tear-down a connection (so this only applies to co-cs or co-ps = modes....the cl-ps mode does not have connections of course) is = harmonised to the activation/deactivation of the OAM.....specifically a = CV/CC flow. If we don't ensure this then there will be obvious = operational problems. This is essentially what the draft is about. =20 Further, GMPLS is a generic OOB CP technique.....it is not a specific = layer network technology per se (but it is specific in it's choice of = signalling and routing components). So one can apply a largely similar = (GMPLS) CP technique to all co-cs mode technologies (whether they are = partitioning a space, freq or time resource - see Note) and co-ps mode = technologies (which only applies to partitioning a time resource - see = Note) on the assumption that the technology is correctly architected in = the DP for the mode considered. It's pretty hard not to correctly = architect the co-cs mode, but it's quite easy to incorrectly architect = the co-ps mode, eg one can't violate the rules of a connection in the = co-cs mode but one can in the co-ps mode. =20 Note - When we partition a time resource in regular time-slices we = create a co-cs mode layer network. When we partition a time resource in = irregular time-slices we create a co-ps mode layer network. More = information on labelling and resource partitioning can be found in the = work on unified modelling (of networks) in G.800. =20 regards, Neil -----Original Message----- From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On = Behalf Of Attila Takacs Sent: 05 December 2007 02:03 To: Thomas Nadeau; Diego Caviglia Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Hi Tom, please see inline. Best regards, Attila _____ =20 From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com]=20 Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 2:19 AM To: Diego Caviglia Cc: Attila Takacs; ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt On Dec 4, 2007, at 7:33 PM, Diego Caviglia wrote: Hi Thomas, My understanding of the ID was that RSVP-TE can be used = to 'piggyback' CFM set-up, otherwise the scenario is: usage of RSVP-TE = to set-up the LSP and NMS (meaning everything that is not control plane) = to enable to CFM for the LSP. As I understand it, the IEEE is working on set-up of CFM (and MEPs), as = are some vendors I know. *) This to me seems like the right way to do this. =20 IEEE specified CFM and MIBs to setup CFM.=20 Diego's summary is correct: one can use an NMS or a control plane to = setup the data plane. In this case we propose to use GMPLS to setup the = data plane: both forwarding + OAM. From your comment I see that you're not happy with the fact the ID is so = technology specific am I right? =20 Precisely; its gluing CFM to RSVP-TE/GMPLS as a transport.=20 I do not see your point with gluing. What do you mean by "as transport"? = GMPLS is just controlling OAM, CFM is run solely in the data plane. =20 If yes do you agree with the fact that could be useful in general to use = the same signaling 'session' to set-up the LSP and to enable the CFM? No, I do not agree. Again, if CFM is to be set-up e2e, let the IEEE = define this. Leave GMPLS to CCAMP. =20 =20 Sorry, I cannot follow. =20 =20 =20 =20 --Tom Best Regards Diego _____ =20 From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On = Behalf Of Thomas Nadeau Sent: marted=EC 4 dicembre 2007 11.30 To: Attila Takacs Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt On Dec 4, 2007, at 1:51 PM, Attila Takacs wrote: Hi Thomas, Thank you for the comments! Please see answers inline. Best regards, Attila _____ =20 From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com]=20 Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 2:58 PM To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Cc: Attila Takacs; balazs.gero@ericsson.com Subject: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt After reading this draft, I have some questions/comments. 1) Overall, I am concerned that the definition of a new TLV and these = procedures represent=20 what amounts to a laying violation and ask that the ADs take a look at = this approach closely. This is similar to the now-rejected approach that was = proposed in the l2vpn WG about munging CFM + PWs. To my reading, this is = essentially the same thing. If you want to run CFM, run it natively over the = ethernet interfaces and have no regard for the underlying topology (GMPLS, PWs, etc...) = otherwise you=20 will be creating a mess for implementations and interoperability. =20 The application of the draft is exactly for what you are calling out: = when CFM is run natively over the Ethernet interfaces. The document = focuses on GELS and Ethernet LSPs. That is, to establish CFM entities = for GMPLS controlled Ethernet LSPs. Hence, I think there is no layer = violation issue. This solution specifically only works for GMPLS ethernet LSPs, = right? =20 What do I do if I want to set up MPLS ethernet LSPs (i.e.: PWs) and do = CFM over those? Oh, that is a different solution, right? Then what do I do if I want to run = CFM over some new type of ethernet LSP in the future? More protocol hacks? The point is to use = CFM over an ethernet interface without the underlying layers knowing. This is good networking = architecture design, that simplifies implementations and makes them more robust, as well as makes using them = operationally much easier.=20 2) The introductory sections in this draft give a lot of discussion = about fast fault detection. I am puzzled by this given that GMPLS networks tend to run over quickly = self-healing optical infrastructures. Is it therefore truly necessary to motivate = this work by requiring fast CFMs? It is right that frequent CCMs are not required if the layers below = Ethernet handle protection. However, the ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs = where Ethernet is not just a single hop above a transport LSP. In this = case Ethernet layer (for clarity GELS) may provide protection for = Ethernet LSPs. In any case, the whole point of the ID is to allow for = the appropriate configuration of CFM for Ethernet LSPs with GMPLS. 3) This document does not cover E-LMI. Why not? E-LMI is run over the MEF UNI. The ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs within a = network. For the purposes of this document, we only discuss Ethernet OAM [IEEE-CFM] aspects that are relevant for the connectivity monitoring of bidirectional point-to-point PBB-TE connections. =20 4) Is this the right place to define this document or should this be = done in GELS? Well, GELS is done in CCAMP...this seems to be the right place. 5) In section 2 you make the following statement: 2. GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions To simplify the configuration of connectivity monitoring, when an Ethernet LSP is signalled the associated MEPs should be automatically established. Further more, GMPLS signalling should be able to enable/disable connectivity monitoring of a particular Ethernet LSP. To my point in #1 above, you should use the native CFM functionality = over the ethernet interface and signal those capabilities to the bridges at both ends using the IEEE CFM = signaling procedures (when and if they are created). If you want to test the underlying GMPLS LSP(s), then you = should use some other mechanism defined for that layer such as the work stated in = draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt See the note to your point #1. There is no relation to the = gmpls-LSP-ping draft.=20 The point I am making is that perhaps it should. --Tom ------_=_NextPart_001_01C8370C.22930EF6 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
I'm puzzled.  I read the draft and thought it was = excellent. =20 It is addressing an important operational issue, ie a critical = operational OAM=20 requirement is to ensure that whatever mechanism (MP or CP) is used to=20 set-up/tear-down a connection (so this only applies to co-cs or co-ps=20 modes....the cl-ps mode does not have connections of course) is = harmonised to=20 the activation/deactivation of the OAM.....specifically a CV/CC=20 flow.   If we don't ensure this then there will be obvious = operational=20 problems.  This is essentially what the draft is = about.
 
Further, GMPLS is a generic OOB CP technique.....it = is not a=20 specific layer network technology per se (but it is specific in it's = choice of=20 signalling and routing components).  So one can apply a largely = similar=20 (GMPLS) CP technique to all co-cs mode technologies (whether they are=20 partitioning a space, freq or time resource - see Note) and co-ps = mode=20 technologies (which only applies to partitioning a time resource - see = Note) on=20 the assumption that the technology is correctly architected in the DP = for the=20 mode considered.  It's pretty hard not to correctly architect = the=20 co-cs mode, but it's quite easy to incorrectly architect the co-ps mode, = eg one=20 can't violate the rules of a connection in the co-cs mode but one can in = the=20 co-ps mode.
 
Note - When we partition a time resource in regular time-slices = we create=20 a co-cs mode layer network.  When we partition a time resource in = irregular=20 time-slices we create a co-ps mode layer network.  More information = on=20 labelling and resource partitioning can be found in the work on unified=20 modelling (of networks) in G.800.
 
regards, Neil
-----Original Message-----
From:=20 owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On = Behalf Of=20 Attila Takacs
Sent: 05 December 2007 02:03
To: = Thomas=20 Nadeau; Diego Caviglia
Cc: = ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE:=20 draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

Hi=20 Tom,
please see inline.
Best=20 regards,
Attila

From: Thomas Nadeau=20 [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com]
Sent: Wednesday, = December 05,=20 2007 2:19 AM
To: Diego Caviglia
Cc: Attila = Takacs;=20 ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com
Subject: Re:=20 draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt


On Dec 4, 2007, at 7:33 PM, Diego Caviglia wrote:
Hi=20 Thomas,
           =      =20 My understanding of the ID was that RSVP-TE can be used to = ‘piggyback’ CFM=20 set-up, otherwise the scenario is: usage of RSVP-TE to set-up the = LSP and=20 NMS (meaning everything that is not control plane) to enable to = CFM for=20 the LSP.

As I = understand it, the=20 IEEE is working on set-up of CFM (and MEPs), as are some vendors I = know.=20 *)
This to me seems like the right way to do this.
 
IEEE=20 specified CFM and MIBs to setup CFM. 
Diego's summary is correct: one can use an NMS or a = control plane=20 to setup the data plane. In this case we propose to use GMPLS to = setup=20 the data plane: both forwarding + OAM.
From=20 your comment I see that you’re not happy with the fact the = ID is so=20 technology specific am I right?=20  
Precisely;=20 its gluing CFM to RSVP-TE/GMPLS as a transport. 
I do=20 not see your point with gluing. What do you mean by "as transport"? = GMPLS is=20 just controlling OAM, CFM is run solely in the data = plane.
 

If=20 yes do you agree with the fact that could be useful in general to = use the=20 same signaling ‘session’ to set-up the LSP and to = enable the=20 CFM?
No, I do not=20 agree.  Again, if CFM is to be set-up e2e, let the IEEE define = this.=20 Leave GMPLS to CCAMP.
 
 
Sorry, I cannot follow.
 
 
 
 
--Tom

 Best = Regards

Diego
From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org = [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org<= /A>] On Behalf Of Thomas=20 Nadeau
Sent: marted=EC 4 dicembre = 2007=20 11.30
To: Attila = Takacs
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com
= Subject: Re:=20 = draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt
On Dec 4,=20 2007, at 1:51 PM, Attila Takacs=20 wrote:


Hi=20 Thomas,
Thank=20 you for the comments!
Please = see=20 answers inline.
Best=20 regards,
Attila
From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, = 2007 2:58=20 PM
To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Cc: Attila Takacs; balazs.gero@ericsson.com
= Subject: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth= -oam-ext-00.txt
After=20 reading this draft, I have some=20 questions/comments.
1)=20 Overall, I am concerned that the definition of a new TLV = and these=20 procedures represent 
what amounts=20 to a laying violation and ask that the ADs take a look at=20 this
approach=20 closely. This is similar to the now-rejected approach that was=20 proposed
in the l2vpn=20 WG about munging CFM + PWs.  To my reading, this is=20 essentially
the same=20 thing. If you want to run CFM, run it natively over the ethernet = interfaces and
have no=20 regard for the underlying topology (GMPLS, PWs, etc...) = otherwise=20 you 
will be=20 creating a mess for implementations and=20 interoperability.  
The=20 application of the draft is exactly for what you are calling = out:=20 when CFM is run natively over the Ethernet interfaces. The = document=20 focuses on GELS and Ethernet LSPs. That is, to establish = CFM=20 entities for GMPLS controlled Ethernet LSPs. Hence, I think = there is=20 no layer violation = issue.
          This=20 solution specifically only works for GMPLS ethernet LSPs, right?=20  
What do I do=20 if I want to set up MPLS ethernet LSPs (i.e.: PWs) and do CFM = over=20 those? Oh,
that is a=20 different solution, right?  Then what do I do if I want to = run CFM=20 over some new type of
ethernet LSP=20 in the future? More protocol hacks?  The point is to use CFM = over an=20 ethernet interface
without the=20 underlying layers knowing. This is good networking architecture = design,=20 that simplifies
implementations and makes them more = robust, as=20 well as makes using them operationally=20 much
easier. 
2) The introductory sections in = this=20 draft give a lot of discussion about fast fault detection.=20 I
am puzzled=20 by this given that GMPLS networks tend to run over quickly=20 self-healing
optical=20 infrastructures. Is it therefore truly necessary to = motivate=20 this work by
requiring=20 fast CFMs?
It is = right=20 that frequent CCMs are not required if the layers below Ethernet = handle=20 protection. However, the ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs where = Ethernet=20 is not just a single hop above a transport = LSP. In this=20 case Ethernet layer (for clarity GELS) may provide = protection for=20 Ethernet LSPs. In any case,  the whole point of the ID = is to=20 allow for the appropriate configuration of CFM for Ethernet LSPs = with=20 GMPLS.
3) This=20 document does not cover E-LMI. Why=20 not?
E-LMI = is run=20 over the MEF UNI. The ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs within a=20 network.
For the purposes of this document, we = only=20 discuss Ethernet = OAM
   = [IEEE-CFM]=20 aspects that are relevant for the connectivity=20 monitoring
   = of=20 bidirectional point-to-point PBB-TE connections.=20  
4) Is this = the right=20 place to define this document or should this be done in=20 GELS?
Well, = GELS is=20 done in CCAMP...this seems to be the right=20 place.
5)   In = section 2=20 you make the following = statement:
2.  = GMPLS RSVP-TE=20 Extensions
    To = simplify the=20 configuration of connectivity monitoring, when=20 an
   = Ethernet=20 LSP is signalled the associated MEPs should be=20 automatically
   =20 established.  Further more, GMPLS signalling should be = able=20 to
  enable/disable=20 connectivity monitoring of a particular Ethernet=20 LSP.
To my point = in #1=20 above, you should use the native CFM functionality over the = ethernet=20 interface and signal
those = capabilities to=20 the bridges at both ends using the IEEE CFM signaling = procedures (when=20 and if they
are created). =  If=20 you want to test the underlying GMPLS LSP(s), then you should = use=20 some
other = mechanism defined=20 for that layer such as the work stated = in draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt=
See = the=20 note to your point #1. There is no relation to the=20 gmpls-LSP-ping draft. 
          The = point I=20 am making is that perhaps it should.
          --Tom
=
------_=_NextPart_001_01C8370C.22930EF6-- From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Wed Dec 05 05:54:10 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzrtK-0006Aa-TB for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 05:54:10 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzrtI-0000kY-BQ for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 05:54:10 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1IzrZn-0005Cb-Kl for ccamp-data@psg.com; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 10:33:59 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [64.102.122.148] (helo=rtp-iport-1.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1IzrZI-00059F-Qu for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 10:33:44 +0000 Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([64.102.121.158]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 05 Dec 2007 05:33:25 -0500 Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12]) by rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lB5AXPiS019706; Wed, 5 Dec 2007 05:33:25 -0500 Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id lB5AXC0i017325; Wed, 5 Dec 2007 10:33:12 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-203.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.20]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 5 Dec 2007 05:33:12 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 05:33:11 -0500 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <1AF0E1E7-0264-4F61-A890-EE6BD4ADC1A9@lucidvision.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt Thread-Index: Acg2e6FsYB0cNs4pQEmREDiLbfmfZAAcuWsA From: "Zafar Ali (zali)" To: "Thomas Nadeau" , Cc: "Otani Tomohiro" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Dec 2007 10:33:12.0112 (UTC) FILETIME=[3C5FBB00:01C8372A] DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=5187; t=1196850805; x=1197714805; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim1001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=zali@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Zafar=20Ali=20(zali)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt=20 |Sender:=20 |To:=20=22Thomas=20Nadeau=22=20,=20; bh=euf/LgUWmBw8Ei+owC80+lglgzAG8EJU3E8YXzdXiDU=; b=VaWKs3oKSjcvzOXFtfVljXyhlVhM1l/VFIpWxIvFeu+GwHb4mfGSduFE+gg4+uh9lYTNZk7B vkbZBJSDcOvkhKTSbZ2A9QYCIDsJXt07uzfJdyLIEv1OWIfG4p5L5T+K; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1; header.From=zali@cisco.com; dkim=pass (s ig from cisco.com/rtpdkim1001 verified; ); Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 0770535483960d190d4a0d020e7060bd Hi Tom-=20 Thanks for your review; please see comments in-line. =20 Thanks Regards... Zafar=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com]=20 > Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 8:43 AM > To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org > Cc: Otani Tomohiro; Zafar Ali (zali) > Subject: draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt=20 >=20 >=20 > I have some questions/comments about this draft. > =09 > 0) The draft needs to be organized a bit better so that it is > clear what you are trying to achieve. =20 Sure we will spend efforts to clarify the text further.=20 > For example, > some of the introductory text is unclear as to whether > or not you are verifying the control or data planes (or > both).=20 Data plane.=20 > At least to my reading. >=20 > 1) This solution seems tightly coupled between RFCs=20 > 4204 and 4379. > Is it reasonable to assume that all implementations > will support 4204? =20 Yes, LMP is already widely implemented (for GMPLS) and already provides lots of GMPLS OAM solutions. I don't see any reason not to reuse it.=20 > This also seems to beg the question > of "are there too many moving parts here?" for this > to ultimately work and interoperate between 2 vendors. >=20 No, I don't think so. Reusing existing protocol/ tool further helps this cause.=20 > 2) Which packet formats are to be used in this=20 > approach? All I see > are statements like "send Test messages", but=20 > no details of > that. >=20 All encoding methods for TEST message that are defined in LMP specification are assumed to be permissible. We can add a more elaborate text to state the same.=20 > 3) Can this approach guarantee that the data plane is checked > completely, and if not, what percentage of coverage is > given? >=20 Yes, it does guarantee data plane connectivity. We can chat more off-line on this.=20 > 4) In section 2.2, you stipulate: >=20 > To limit the scope of LSP Verification to a > particular LSP, LSP-id is used in LOCAL_LINK_ID or > REMOTE_LINK_ID fields of the LMP message exchanges during > verification. >=20 > Something similar has been proposed as an addition to=20 > lsp ping for > the multi-cast case. Please check into this to see if this is > similar enough to reuse that object. >=20 Sure, we will look into this.=20 > 5) Is the link verification actually sent over the LMP=20 > control channel or > the actual data path? Your text is unclear on this: >=20 Control messages to setup link/ LSP verification, e.g., BeginVerify, etc. are sent via control channel and "Test" message is sent in-band of LSP. Think of LSP as a TE link.=20 > To initiate the link verification=20 > procedure, the Ingress > (Egress) node MUST send a BeginVerify message over a control > channel with IP address of the destination (source) node of > the LSP. To limit the scope of LSP Verification to a > particular LSP, LSP-id is used in LOCAL_LINK_ID or > REMOTE_LINK_ID fields of the LMP message exchanges during > verification. If the LINK_ID field is zero, the verification > can span multiple LSPs between the set of=20 > Ingress/Egress nodes > involved in the verification process. The rest of the details > for LSP verification follow the LMP link verification > procedure [RFC4204]. >=20 > RFC4204 states that the link verify messages are NOT to be sent > over the control channel,=20 You meant "Test" message is not sent over the control channel, right. Yes, this is also the case of this draft.=20 > and since you want to verify the > data plane you should follow its rules for this: >=20 > 12.5.6. Test Message (Msg Type =3D 10) >=20 > The Test message is transmitted over the data link=20 > and is used to > verify its physical connectivity. Unless explicitly=20 > stated, these > messages MUST be transmitted over UDP like all other=20 > LMP messages. > The format of the Test messages is as follows: >=20 > ::=3D =20 > >=20 > The above transmission order SHOULD be followed. >=20 > Note that this message is sent over a data link and=20 > NOT over the > control channel. The transport mechanism for the=20 > Test message is > negotiated using the Verify Transport Mechanism field of the > BEGIN_VERIFY object and the Verify Transport Response=20 > field of the > BEGIN_VERIFY_ACK object (see Sections 13.8 and 13.9). >=20 >=20 > 6) I suggest passing this document by the MPLS WG and=20 > the LSP ping co- authors > to ensure that your desire to reuse that=20 > protocol will indeed > work, and that if this is eventually adopted as=20 > a CCAMP work item > that it not pass WG last call until the MPLS WG=20 > has reviewed it. >=20 Most certainly. We will send a private email to LSP Ping co-authors and MPLS WG Chairs (w/ CCAMP WG Chair cc'ed).=20 > =09 >=20 >=20 From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Wed Dec 05 08:32:36 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzuMe-0002mF-Kw for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 08:32:36 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzuMc-0005q7-MI for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 08:32:36 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Izu0h-000H7Y-1X for ccamp-data@psg.com; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 13:09:55 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [72.71.250.34] (helo=lucidvision.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Izu0S-000H6f-HI for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 13:09:47 +0000 Received: from [192.168.1.120] (static-72-71-250-36.cncdnh.fios.verizon.net [72.71.250.36]) by lucidvision.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B1BD5C451; Wed, 5 Dec 2007 08:09:49 -0500 (EST) Cc: , "Otani Tomohiro" Message-Id: <0230F537-A4C8-4131-BF40-B357431ADCB9@lucidvision.com> From: Thomas Nadeau To: "Zafar Ali (zali)" In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Subject: Re: draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 08:09:38 -0500 References: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: a743e34ab8eb08259de9a7307caed594 On Dec 5, 2007, at 5:33 AM, Zafar Ali (zali) wrote: > Hi Tom- > > Thanks for your review; please see comments in-line. > > Thanks > > Regards... Zafar > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 8:43 AM >> To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org >> Cc: Otani Tomohiro; Zafar Ali (zali) >> Subject: draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt >> >> >> I have some questions/comments about this draft. >> >> 0) The draft needs to be organized a bit better so that it is >> clear what you are trying to achieve. > > Sure we will spend efforts to clarify the text further. > >> For example, >> some of the introductory text is unclear as to whether >> or not you are verifying the control or data planes (or >> both). > > Data plane. Can you explain in the document how this works? That, how do intermediate nodes use LMP to check the data plane along the path. It seems to me for instance, that since you are using LMP, you are testing each "segment" of the optical path. This is certainly not end2end testing, so please be clear on this. Also the procedures for how this works need to be clear. Take a look at RFC4379 for examples of how they (we) specified this. The clearest form IMHO is to use pseudo-code/ algorithmic descriptions of all the steps. This way everyone can clearly see what is going on here. >> At least to my reading. >> >> 1) This solution seems tightly coupled between RFCs >> 4204 and 4379. >> Is it reasonable to assume that all implementations >> will support 4204? > > Yes, LMP is already widely implemented (for GMPLS) and already > provides > lots of GMPLS OAM solutions. I don't see any reason not to reuse it. > >> This also seems to beg the question >> of "are there too many moving parts here?" for this >> to ultimately work and interoperate between 2 vendors. >> > > No, I don't think so. Reusing existing protocol/ tool further helps > this > cause. See below. >> 2) Which packet formats are to be used in this >> approach? All I see >> are statements like "send Test messages", but >> no details of >> that. >> > > All encoding methods for TEST message that are defined in LMP > specification are assumed to be permissible. We can add a more > elaborate > text to state the same. Cool. I think the document needs far more details for others to implement/understand it for sure. >> 3) Can this approach guarantee that the data plane is checked >> completely, and if not, what percentage of coverage is >> given? >> > > Yes, it does guarantee data plane connectivity. We can chat more > off-line on this. OK. >> 4) In section 2.2, you stipulate: >> >> To limit the scope of LSP Verification to a >> particular LSP, LSP-id is used in LOCAL_LINK_ID or >> REMOTE_LINK_ID fields of the LMP message exchanges during >> verification. >> >> Something similar has been proposed as an addition to >> lsp ping for >> the multi-cast case. Please check into this to see if this is >> similar enough to reuse that object. >> > > Sure, we will look into this. > >> 5) Is the link verification actually sent over the LMP >> control channel or >> the actual data path? Your text is unclear on this: >> > > Control messages to setup link/ LSP verification, e.g., BeginVerify, > etc. are sent via control channel and "Test" message is sent in-band > of > LSP. Think of LSP as a TE link. This gets to my point about "too many moving parts". What concerns me about this is not the re-use of LMP per se; thats a good idea in the sense of code/protocol re-use; however, what worries me is one protocol stimulating actions in another like this. There are security implications here that need to be addressed. Also, how certain are you that the implementations of LMP out there will all behave the same way once you initiate the generation of these messages? >> To initiate the link verification >> procedure, the Ingress >> (Egress) node MUST send a BeginVerify message over a control >> channel with IP address of the destination (source) node of >> the LSP. To limit the scope of LSP Verification to a >> particular LSP, LSP-id is used in LOCAL_LINK_ID or >> REMOTE_LINK_ID fields of the LMP message exchanges during >> verification. If the LINK_ID field is zero, the verification >> can span multiple LSPs between the set of >> Ingress/Egress nodes >> involved in the verification process. The rest of the details >> for LSP verification follow the LMP link verification >> procedure [RFC4204]. >> >> RFC4204 states that the link verify messages are NOT to be sent >> over the control channel, > > You meant "Test" message is not sent over the control channel, right. > Yes, this is also the case of this draft. This needs to be clarified. >> and since you want to verify the >> data plane you should follow its rules for this: >> >> 12.5.6. Test Message (Msg Type = 10) >> >> The Test message is transmitted over the data link >> and is used to >> verify its physical connectivity. Unless explicitly >> stated, these >> messages MUST be transmitted over UDP like all other >> LMP messages. >> The format of the Test messages is as follows: >> >> ::= >> >> >> The above transmission order SHOULD be followed. >> >> Note that this message is sent over a data link and >> NOT over the >> control channel. The transport mechanism for the >> Test message is >> negotiated using the Verify Transport Mechanism field of the >> BEGIN_VERIFY object and the Verify Transport Response >> field of the >> BEGIN_VERIFY_ACK object (see Sections 13.8 and 13.9). >> >> >> 6) I suggest passing this document by the MPLS WG and >> the LSP ping co- authors >> to ensure that your desire to reuse that >> protocol will indeed >> work, and that if this is eventually adopted as >> a CCAMP work item >> that it not pass WG last call until the MPLS WG >> has reviewed it. >> > > Most certainly. We will send a private email to LSP Ping co-authors > and > MPLS WG Chairs (w/ CCAMP WG Chair cc'ed). Thanks. --Tom > > >> >> >> > From SusannetransferralDrummond@wwwalk.org Wed Dec 05 10:30:15 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzwCV-0004P1-K6 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 10:30:15 -0500 Received: from 197.255.218.87.dynamic.jazztel.es ([87.218.255.197] helo=pc) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzwCV-0007ic-3e for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 10:30:15 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host21741592.wwwalk.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id aIU11Lxj36.357201.zAM.NSf.9929705540919 for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2007 16:29:46 -0100 Message-ID: <2131801c83753$b1802e00$8101a8c0@pc> From: "Paige Grayson" To: Cc: , =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Cialis Soft=20 Tabs would help you to make better sex more often and to bring=20 unimaginable plesure to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue = and get=20 ready for action in 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of = men after=20 taking this medication were able to have perfect erection during = 24=20 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Cialis Soft Tabs gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_21314_01C83753.B1802E00-- From Bratcher@ashfordcc.com Wed Dec 05 10:52:51 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzwYN-0004Ug-NA for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 10:52:51 -0500 Received: from ppp-154-154.33-151.iol.it ([151.33.154.154] helo=ppp-28-159.33-151.iol.it) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzwYM-0001TC-VB for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 10:52:51 -0500 Received: from renbo-epvgkzrtc ([118.125.70.69]:27999 "EHLO renbo-epvgkzrtc" smtp-auth: TLS-CIPHER: TLS-PEER-CN1: ) by ppp-28-159.33-151.iol.it with ESMTP id S22JGWVRYUNDYQGP (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Dec 2007 16:53:10 +0100 Message-ID: <000201c83756$e3d06660$1c9f2197@renboepvgkzrtc> From: "Jae Bratcher" To: Subject: niktidi{ Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 16:52:50 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0008_01C8375F.4594CE60" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Spam-Score: 2.0 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464 ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C8375F.4594CE60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Yo yo yo ccamp-archive boost your personal image http://desertcentury.com Jae Bratcher ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C8375F.4594CE60 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Yo yo yo ccamp-archive
boost your personal image
http://desertcentury.com
Jae Bratcher
------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C8375F.4594CE60-- From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Wed Dec 05 11:53:50 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzxVO-000447-7p for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 11:53:50 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzxVB-0003nB-9Z for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 11:53:50 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Izx6Z-0008zC-Dj for ccamp-data@psg.com; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 16:28:11 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE, RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [193.180.251.62] (helo=mailgw4.ericsson.se) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Izx6D-0008xp-N8 for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 16:28:01 +0000 Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id AF46821A5C; Wed, 5 Dec 2007 17:27:47 +0100 (CET) X-AuditID: c1b4fb3e-ae69ebb00000459d-95-4756d18352aa Received: from esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.254.123]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 8981321A36; Wed, 5 Dec 2007 17:27:47 +0100 (CET) Received: from esealmw110.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.200.78]) by esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 5 Dec 2007 17:27:47 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C8375B.C5166677" Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 17:27:44 +0100 Message-ID: <0428AC48A879ED46A94F39D5665DF684DF2F9A@esealmw110.eemea.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <2ECAA42C79676B42AEBAC11229CA7D0C01880C37@E03MVB2-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Thread-Index: Acg23NTxGvHAwYB1RMusTe1rH8zc1AABNqKAAAj7JuAAFW/IEA== From: "Diego Caviglia" To: , "Attila Takacs" , Cc: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Dec 2007 16:27:47.0236 (UTC) FILETIME=[C5560640:01C8375B] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: c7f54eeda1c992777af8f6890e2ef7e2 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C8375B.C5166677 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Neil, Yes I totally agree with your analysis. =20 The is not going to redefine or reinvent the OAM that, as Thomas as = pointed out, is done by IEEE, the ID just specify how to use a control = plane mechanism (GMPLS) set-up at the same time data plane circuit and = the related OAM. =20 Frankly specking I don't see any layer violation here. =20 BR =20 Diego =20 ________________________________ From: neil.2.harrison@bt.com [mailto:neil.2.harrison@bt.com]=20 Sent: marted=EC 4 dicembre 2007 22.55 To: Attila Takacs; tnadeau@lucidvision.com; Diego Caviglia Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt =20 I'm puzzled. I read the draft and thought it was excellent. It is = addressing an important operational issue, ie a critical operational OAM = requirement is to ensure that whatever mechanism (MP or CP) is used to = set-up/tear-down a connection (so this only applies to co-cs or co-ps = modes....the cl-ps mode does not have connections of course) is = harmonised to the activation/deactivation of the OAM.....specifically a = CV/CC flow. If we don't ensure this then there will be obvious = operational problems. This is essentially what the draft is about. =20 Further, GMPLS is a generic OOB CP technique.....it is not a specific = layer network technology per se (but it is specific in it's choice of = signalling and routing components). So one can apply a largely similar = (GMPLS) CP technique to all co-cs mode technologies (whether they are = partitioning a space, freq or time resource - see Note) and co-ps mode = technologies (which only applies to partitioning a time resource - see = Note) on the assumption that the technology is correctly architected in = the DP for the mode considered. It's pretty hard not to correctly = architect the co-cs mode, but it's quite easy to incorrectly architect = the co-ps mode, eg one can't violate the rules of a connection in the = co-cs mode but one can in the co-ps mode. =20 Note - When we partition a time resource in regular time-slices we = create a co-cs mode layer network. When we partition a time resource in = irregular time-slices we create a co-ps mode layer network. More = information on labelling and resource partitioning can be found in the = work on unified modelling (of networks) in G.800. =20 regards, Neil -----Original Message----- From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On = Behalf Of Attila Takacs Sent: 05 December 2007 02:03 To: Thomas Nadeau; Diego Caviglia Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Hi Tom, please see inline. Best regards, Attila =20 =09 ________________________________ From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com]=20 Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 2:19 AM To: Diego Caviglia Cc: Attila Takacs; ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt =20 On Dec 4, 2007, at 7:33 PM, Diego Caviglia wrote: =09 =09 =09 =09 Hi Thomas, My understanding of the ID was that RSVP-TE can be = used to 'piggyback' CFM set-up, otherwise the scenario is: usage of = RSVP-TE to set-up the LSP and NMS (meaning everything that is not = control plane) to enable to CFM for the LSP. =20 As I understand it, the IEEE is working on set-up of CFM (and MEPs), = as are some vendors I know. *) This to me seems like the right way to do this. =20 IEEE specified CFM and MIBs to setup CFM.=20 Diego's summary is correct: one can use an NMS or a control plane to = setup the data plane. In this case we propose to use GMPLS to setup the = data plane: both forwarding + OAM. =09 =09 From your comment I see that you're not happy with the fact the ID is = so technology specific am I right? =20 =20 Precisely; its gluing CFM to RSVP-TE/GMPLS as a transport.=20 I do not see your point with gluing. What do you mean by "as = transport"? GMPLS is just controlling OAM, CFM is run solely in the data = plane. =20 =20 =09 =09 If yes do you agree with the fact that could be useful in general to = use the same signaling 'session' to set-up the LSP and to enable the = CFM? =20 No, I do not agree. Again, if CFM is to be set-up e2e, let the IEEE = define this. Leave GMPLS to CCAMP. =20 =20 Sorry, I cannot follow. =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 --Tom =20 =20 =09 =09 =09 =09 Best Regards =09 Diego =09 =09 ________________________________ From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On = Behalf Of Thomas Nadeau Sent: marted=EC 4 dicembre 2007 11.30 To: Attila Takacs Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt On Dec 4, 2007, at 1:51 PM, Attila Takacs wrote: =09 =09 =09 =09 Hi Thomas, Thank you for the comments! Please see answers inline. Best regards, Attila =09 =09 ________________________________ From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com]=20 Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 2:58 PM To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Cc: Attila Takacs; balazs.gero@ericsson.com Subject: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt After reading this draft, I have some questions/comments. 1) Overall, I am concerned that the definition of a new TLV and these = procedures represent=20 what amounts to a laying violation and ask that the ADs take a look = at this approach closely. This is similar to the now-rejected approach that = was proposed in the l2vpn WG about munging CFM + PWs. To my reading, this is = essentially the same thing. If you want to run CFM, run it natively over the = ethernet interfaces and have no regard for the underlying topology (GMPLS, PWs, etc...) = otherwise you=20 will be creating a mess for implementations and interoperability. =20 The application of the draft is exactly for what you are calling out: = when CFM is run natively over the Ethernet interfaces. The document = focuses on GELS and Ethernet LSPs. That is, to establish CFM entities = for GMPLS controlled Ethernet LSPs. Hence, I think there is no layer = violation issue. This solution specifically only works for GMPLS ethernet = LSPs, right? =20 What do I do if I want to set up MPLS ethernet LSPs (i.e.: PWs) and do = CFM over those? Oh, that is a different solution, right? Then what do I do if I want to = run CFM over some new type of ethernet LSP in the future? More protocol hacks? The point is to use = CFM over an ethernet interface without the underlying layers knowing. This is good networking = architecture design, that simplifies implementations and makes them more robust, as well as makes using = them operationally much easier.=20 2) The introductory sections in this draft give a lot of discussion = about fast fault detection. I am puzzled by this given that GMPLS networks tend to run over = quickly self-healing optical infrastructures. Is it therefore truly necessary to motivate = this work by requiring fast CFMs? It is right that frequent CCMs are not required if the layers below = Ethernet handle protection. However, the ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs = where Ethernet is not just a single hop above a transport LSP. In this = case Ethernet layer (for clarity GELS) may provide protection for = Ethernet LSPs. In any case, the whole point of the ID is to allow for = the appropriate configuration of CFM for Ethernet LSPs with GMPLS. 3) This document does not cover E-LMI. Why not? E-LMI is run over the MEF UNI. The ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs within = a network. For the purposes of this document, we only discuss Ethernet OAM [IEEE-CFM] aspects that are relevant for the connectivity = monitoring of bidirectional point-to-point PBB-TE connections. =20 4) Is this the right place to define this document or should this be = done in GELS? Well, GELS is done in CCAMP...this seems to be the right place. 5) In section 2 you make the following statement: 2. GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions To simplify the configuration of connectivity monitoring, when = an Ethernet LSP is signalled the associated MEPs should be = automatically established. Further more, GMPLS signalling should be able to enable/disable connectivity monitoring of a particular Ethernet = LSP. To my point in #1 above, you should use the native CFM functionality = over the ethernet interface and signal those capabilities to the bridges at both ends using the IEEE CFM = signaling procedures (when and if they are created). If you want to test the underlying GMPLS LSP(s), then = you should use some other mechanism defined for that layer such as the work stated in = draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt See the note to your point #1. There is no relation to the = gmpls-LSP-ping draft.=20 The point I am making is that perhaps it should. --Tom =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C8375B.C5166677 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message

Hi = Neil,

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Yes = I totally agree with your analysis.

 

The is not going to redefine or = reinvent the OAM that, as Thomas as pointed out, is done by IEEE, the ID just = specify how to use a control plane mechanism (GMPLS) set-up at the same time data = plane circuit and the related OAM.

 

Frankly specking I don’t see = any layer violation here.

 

BR

 

Diego

 

From: neil.2.harrison@bt.com [mailto:neil.2.harrison@bt.com]
Sent: marted=EC 4 = dicembre 2007 22.55
To: Attila Takacs; tnadeau@lucidvision.com; Diego Caviglia
Cc: = ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

 

I'm puzzled.  I read the draft and thought it was excellent.  It = is addressing an important operational issue, ie a critical operational OAM requirement is to ensure that whatever mechanism (MP or CP) is used to set-up/tear-down a connection (so this only applies to co-cs or co-ps modes....the cl-ps mode does not have connections of course) is = harmonised to the activation/deactivation of the OAM.....specifically a CV/CC flow.   If we don't ensure this then there will be obvious operational problems.  This is essentially what the draft is = about.

 

Further, GMPLS is a generic OOB CP technique.....it is not a specific = layer network technology per se (but it is specific in it's choice of = signalling and routing components).  So one can apply a largely similar (GMPLS) CP technique to all co-cs mode technologies (whether they are partitioning = a space, freq or time resource - see Note) and co-ps mode = technologies (which only applies to partitioning a time resource - see Note) on the assumption that the technology is correctly architected in the DP for = the mode considered.  It's pretty hard not to correctly architect the = co-cs mode, but it's quite easy to incorrectly architect the co-ps mode, eg = one can't violate the rules of a connection in the co-cs mode but one can in the = co-ps mode.

 

Note = - When we partition a time resource in regular time-slices we create a co-cs = mode layer network.  When we partition a time resource in irregular = time-slices we create a co-ps mode layer network.  More information on = labelling and resource partitioning can be found in the work on unified modelling (of networks) in G.800.

 

regards, Neil

-----Original = Message-----
From: = owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On = Behalf Of Attila = Takacs
Sent: 05 December 2007 = 02:03
To: Thomas Nadeau; Diego = Caviglia
Cc: = ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

Hi = Tom,

please see = inline.

Best = regards,

Attila

 

From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December = 05, 2007 2:19 AM
To: Diego Caviglia
Cc: Attila Takacs; ccamp@ops.ietf.org; = balazs.gero@ericsson.com
Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

 

On Dec 4, 2007, at 7:33 PM, Diego Caviglia = wrote:



Hi = Thomas,

      =            My understanding of the ID was that RSVP-TE can be used to = ‘piggyback’ CFM set-up, otherwise the scenario is: usage of RSVP-TE to set-up the = LSP and NMS (meaning everything that is not control plane) to enable to CFM for = the LSP.

 

As I understand it, the IEEE is working on set-up of CFM (and = MEPs), as are some vendors I know. *)

This to me seems like the right way to do = this.

 

IEEE specified CFM and MIBs to = setup CFM. 

Diego's summary is correct: one can = use an NMS or a control plane to setup the data plane. In this case we = propose to use GMPLS to setup the data plane: both forwarding + = OAM.

From your comment I see that you’re not happy with the fact the ID is so = technology specific am I right?  

 

Precisely; its gluing CFM to RSVP-TE/GMPLS as a = transport. 

I do not see your point with = gluing. What do you mean by "as transport"? GMPLS is just controlling OAM, = CFM is run solely in the data plane.

 

 

If yes do you agree with the fact that could be useful in general to use the same signaling ‘session’ to set-up the LSP and to enable the = CFM?

 

No, I do not agree.  Again, if CFM is to be set-up e2e, let = the IEEE define this. Leave GMPLS to CCAMP.

 

 

Sorry, I cannot = follow.

 

 

 

 

 

--Tom

 

 



 Best = Regards


Diego

On Dec 4, = 2007, at 1:51 PM, Attila Takacs = wrote:




Hi Thomas,

Thank you for the = comments!

Please see answers = inline.

Best regards,
Attila

From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 = 2:58 PM
To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Cc: Attila Takacs; balazs.gero@ericsson.com
= Subject: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth= -oam-ext-00.txt

After = reading this draft, I have some = questions/comments.

1) Overall, I am = concerned that the definition of a new TLV and these procedures = represent 

what amounts to a laying = violation and ask that the ADs take a look at this

approach closely. This is similar = to the now-rejected approach that was = proposed

in the l2vpn WG about munging CFM = + PWs.  To my reading, this is = essentially

the same thing. If you want to = run CFM, run it natively over the ethernet interfaces = and

have no regard for the underlying = topology (GMPLS, PWs, etc...) otherwise = you 

will be creating a mess for implementations and interoperability.  

The application of the draft = is exactly for what you are calling out: when CFM is run natively over the Ethernet interfaces. The document focuses on GELS and Ethernet = LSPs. That is, to establish CFM entities for GMPLS controlled Ethernet LSPs. Hence, I think there is no layer violation = issue.

     &nbs= p;    This solution specifically = only works for GMPLS ethernet LSPs, right?  

What do I do if I want to set up = MPLS ethernet LSPs (i.e.: PWs) and do CFM over those? = Oh,

that is a different solution, = right?  Then what do I do if I want to run CFM over some new type = of

ethernet LSP in the future? More = protocol hacks?  The point is to use CFM over an ethernet = interface

without the underlying layers = knowing. This is good networking architecture design, that = simplifies

implementations and makes them = more robust, as well as makes using them operationally = much

easier. 

2) The introductory sections = in this draft give a lot of discussion about fast fault detection. = I

am puzzled by this given that = GMPLS networks tend to run over quickly = self-healing

optical infrastructures. Is it therefore truly necessary to motivate this work = by

requiring fast = CFMs?

It is right that frequent CCMs are = not required if the layers below Ethernet handle protection. However, the ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs where Ethernet is not just a single hop above a transport LSP. In this case Ethernet layer = (for clarity GELS) may provide protection for Ethernet LSPs. In any = case,  the whole point of the ID is to allow for the appropriate configuration = of CFM for Ethernet LSPs with GMPLS.

3) This document does = not cover E-LMI. Why not?

E-LMI is run over the MEF UNI. = The ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs within a network.

For the purposes of this document, we only discuss Ethernet = OAM

   [IEEE-CFM] aspects that are relevant for the connectivity = monitoring

   = of bidirectional point-to-point PBB-TE connections. =  

4)= Is this the right place to define this document or should this be done in = GELS?

Well, GELS is done in CCAMP...this = seems to be the right place.

5)   In section 2 you make the following = statement:

2.=   GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions

&n= bsp;   To simplify the = configuration of connectivity monitoring, when an

   = Ethernet LSP is signalled the associated MEPs should be = automatically

    established.  = Further more, GMPLS signalling should be able to

  e= nable/disable connectivity monitoring of a particular Ethernet = LSP.

To my point in #1 above, you should use the native CFM functionality over = the ethernet interface and signal

those = capabilities to the bridges at both ends using the IEEE CFM signaling procedures (when = and if they

are = created).  If you want to test the underlying GMPLS LSP(s), then you should = use some

other = mechanism defined for that layer such as the work stated = in draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt

See the note to your point #1. = There is no relation to the gmpls-LSP-ping = draft. 

     &nbs= p;    The point I am making is that = perhaps it should.

     &nbs= p;    --Tom

 

------_=_NextPart_001_01C8375B.C5166677-- From KathrinewolcottMarcus@annapolischamber.com Wed Dec 05 12:11:19 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzxmJ-0000aU-ER for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 12:11:19 -0500 Received: from pool-71-111-201-55.rlghnc.dsl-w.verizon.net ([71.111.201.55] helo=dim4600c) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzxmJ-0001Xk-4o for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 12:11:19 -0500 Received: from congressman by annapolischamber.com with SMTP id QqlkmGkstA for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2007 12:16:55 +0500 From: "Tammi Presley" To: , Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzxvW-0007FH-4B for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 12:20:50 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzxvS-0006v7-T3 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 12:20:50 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1IzxcO-000BoB-Pr for ccamp-data@psg.com; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 17:01:04 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE, RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [206.16.17.211] (helo=usaga01-in.huawei.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1IzxcB-000Bn5-SX for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 17:00:58 +0000 Received: from huawei.com (usaga01-in [172.18.4.6]) by usaga01-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0JSL00KPX5XE9V@usaga01-in.huawei.com> for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 09:00:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from dan (dhcp-4142.ietf70.org [130.129.65.66]) by usaga01-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0JSL000BG5X368@usaga01-in.huawei.com> for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 09:00:50 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 01:00:41 +0800 From: Dan Li Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt To: Diego Caviglia , neil.2.harrison@bt.com, Attila Takacs , tnadeau@lucidvision.com Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Message-id: <002c01c83760$5edf74f0$42418182@dan> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_ri+RKGJ58xhymCKK5aRKfw)" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <0428AC48A879ED46A94F39D5665DF684DF2F9A@esealmw110.eemea.ericsson.se> Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: a6fbc3f72733b992651b7383a5b2fed7 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_ri+RKGJ58xhymCKK5aRKfw) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable MessageHi, I think there is a misunderstanding with respect to the objective of = this draft.=20 As I read this draft, it describes how to extend the RSVP protocol to = support the configuration/enable the OAM function of Ethernet LSP, which = I think is a good thing to do, it is not saying to use signaling = protocol to do the OAM work. But anyway, it may be necessary to clarify = the objective at the beginning of this draft. Regards, Dan ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Diego Caviglia=20 To: neil.2.harrison@bt.com ; Attila Takacs ; tnadeau@lucidvision.com=20 Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org=20 Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 12:27 AM Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Hi Neil, Yes I totally agree with your analysis. =20 The is not going to redefine or reinvent the OAM that, as Thomas as = pointed out, is done by IEEE, the ID just specify how to use a control = plane mechanism (GMPLS) set-up at the same time data plane circuit and = the related OAM. =20 Frankly specking I don't see any layer violation here. =20 BR =20 Diego =20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- From: neil.2.harrison@bt.com [mailto:neil.2.harrison@bt.com]=20 Sent: marted=EC 4 dicembre 2007 22.55 To: Attila Takacs; tnadeau@lucidvision.com; Diego Caviglia Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt =20 I'm puzzled. I read the draft and thought it was excellent. It is = addressing an important operational issue, ie a critical operational OAM = requirement is to ensure that whatever mechanism (MP or CP) is used to = set-up/tear-down a connection (so this only applies to co-cs or co-ps = modes....the cl-ps mode does not have connections of course) is = harmonised to the activation/deactivation of the OAM.....specifically a = CV/CC flow. If we don't ensure this then there will be obvious = operational problems. This is essentially what the draft is about. =20 Further, GMPLS is a generic OOB CP technique.....it is not a specific = layer network technology per se (but it is specific in it's choice of = signalling and routing components). So one can apply a largely similar = (GMPLS) CP technique to all co-cs mode technologies (whether they are = partitioning a space, freq or time resource - see Note) and co-ps mode = technologies (which only applies to partitioning a time resource - see = Note) on the assumption that the technology is correctly architected in = the DP for the mode considered. It's pretty hard not to correctly = architect the co-cs mode, but it's quite easy to incorrectly architect = the co-ps mode, eg one can't violate the rules of a connection in the = co-cs mode but one can in the co-ps mode. =20 Note - When we partition a time resource in regular time-slices we = create a co-cs mode layer network. When we partition a time resource in = irregular time-slices we create a co-ps mode layer network. More = information on labelling and resource partitioning can be found in the = work on unified modelling (of networks) in G.800. =20 regards, Neil -----Original Message----- From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On = Behalf Of Attila Takacs Sent: 05 December 2007 02:03 To: Thomas Nadeau; Diego Caviglia Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Hi Tom, please see inline. Best regards, Attila =20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com]=20 Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 2:19 AM To: Diego Caviglia Cc: Attila Takacs; ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt =20 On Dec 4, 2007, at 7:33 PM, Diego Caviglia wrote: Hi Thomas, My understanding of the ID was that RSVP-TE can = be used to 'piggyback' CFM set-up, otherwise the scenario is: usage of = RSVP-TE to set-up the LSP and NMS (meaning everything that is not = control plane) to enable to CFM for the LSP. =20 As I understand it, the IEEE is working on set-up of CFM (and = MEPs), as are some vendors I know. *) This to me seems like the right way to do this. =20 IEEE specified CFM and MIBs to setup CFM.=20 Diego's summary is correct: one can use an NMS or a control plane to = setup the data plane. In this case we propose to use GMPLS to setup the = data plane: both forwarding + OAM. From your comment I see that you're not happy with the fact the = ID is so technology specific am I right? =20 =20 Precisely; its gluing CFM to RSVP-TE/GMPLS as a transport.=20 I do not see your point with gluing. What do you mean by "as = transport"? GMPLS is just controlling OAM, CFM is run solely in the data = plane. =20 =20 If yes do you agree with the fact that could be useful in = general to use the same signaling 'session' to set-up the LSP and to = enable the CFM? =20 No, I do not agree. Again, if CFM is to be set-up e2e, let the = IEEE define this. Leave GMPLS to CCAMP. =20 =20 Sorry, I cannot follow. =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 --Tom =20 =20 Best Regards Diego -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] = On Behalf Of Thomas Nadeau Sent: marted=EC 4 dicembre 2007 11.30 To: Attila Takacs Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt On Dec 4, 2007, at 1:51 PM, Attila Takacs wrote: Hi Thomas, Thank you for the comments! Please see answers inline. Best regards, Attila ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com]=20 Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 2:58 PM To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Cc: Attila Takacs; balazs.gero@ericsson.com Subject: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt After reading this draft, I have some questions/comments. 1) Overall, I am concerned that the definition of a new TLV and = these procedures represent=20 what amounts to a laying violation and ask that the ADs take a = look at this approach closely. This is similar to the now-rejected approach = that was proposed in the l2vpn WG about munging CFM + PWs. To my reading, this is = essentially the same thing. If you want to run CFM, run it natively over the = ethernet interfaces and have no regard for the underlying topology (GMPLS, PWs, etc...) = otherwise you=20 will be creating a mess for implementations and = interoperability. =20 The application of the draft is exactly for what you are calling = out: when CFM is run natively over the Ethernet interfaces. The document = focuses on GELS and Ethernet LSPs. That is, to establish CFM entities = for GMPLS controlled Ethernet LSPs. Hence, I think there is no layer = violation issue. This solution specifically only works for GMPLS ethernet = LSPs, right? =20 What do I do if I want to set up MPLS ethernet LSPs (i.e.: PWs) = and do CFM over those? Oh, that is a different solution, right? Then what do I do if I want = to run CFM over some new type of ethernet LSP in the future? More protocol hacks? The point is to = use CFM over an ethernet interface without the underlying layers knowing. This is good networking = architecture design, that simplifies implementations and makes them more robust, as well as makes using = them operationally much easier.=20 2) The introductory sections in this draft give a lot of = discussion about fast fault detection. I am puzzled by this given that GMPLS networks tend to run over = quickly self-healing optical infrastructures. Is it therefore truly necessary to = motivate this work by requiring fast CFMs? It is right that frequent CCMs are not required if the layers = below Ethernet handle protection. However, the ID focuses on Ethernet = LSPs where Ethernet is not just a single hop above a transport LSP. In = this case Ethernet layer (for clarity GELS) may provide protection for = Ethernet LSPs. In any case, the whole point of the ID is to allow for = the appropriate configuration of CFM for Ethernet LSPs with GMPLS. 3) This document does not cover E-LMI. Why not? E-LMI is run over the MEF UNI. The ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs = within a network. For the purposes of this document, we only discuss Ethernet = OAM [IEEE-CFM] aspects that are relevant for the connectivity = monitoring of bidirectional point-to-point PBB-TE connections. =20 4) Is this the right place to define this document or should = this be done in GELS? Well, GELS is done in CCAMP...this seems to be the right place. 5) In section 2 you make the following statement: 2. GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions To simplify the configuration of connectivity monitoring, = when an Ethernet LSP is signalled the associated MEPs should be = automatically established. Further more, GMPLS signalling should be = able to enable/disable connectivity monitoring of a particular = Ethernet LSP. To my point in #1 above, you should use the native CFM = functionality over the ethernet interface and signal those capabilities to the bridges at both ends using the IEEE = CFM signaling procedures (when and if they are created). If you want to test the underlying GMPLS = LSP(s), then you should use some other mechanism defined for that layer such as the work stated = in draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt See the note to your point #1. There is no relation to the = gmpls-LSP-ping draft.=20 The point I am making is that perhaps it should. --Tom =20 --Boundary_(ID_ri+RKGJ58xhymCKK5aRKfw) Content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Message=
Hi,
 
I think there is a misunderstanding with respect to the = objective of=20 this draft.
 
As I read this draft, it describes how to extend the RSVP = protocol to support the configuration/enable the OAM function of = Ethernet=20 LSP, which I think is a good thing to do, it is not saying to use = signaling=20 protocol to do the OAM work. But anyway, it may be necessary to clarify = the=20 objective at the beginning of this draft.
 
Regards,
 
Dan
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Diego Caviglia
To: neil.2.harrison@bt.com ; Attila Takacs ; tnadeau@lucidvision.com =
Sent: Thursday, December 06, = 2007 12:27=20 AM
Subject: RE:=20 draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

Hi=20 Neil,

          =20 Yes I totally agree with your analysis.

 

The is not = going to=20 redefine or reinvent the OAM that, as Thomas as pointed out, is done = by IEEE,=20 the ID just specify how to use a control plane mechanism (GMPLS) = set-up at the=20 same time data plane circuit and the related = OAM.

 

Frankly = specking I=20 don=92t see any layer violation here.

 

BR

 

Diego

 

From: neil.2.harrison@bt.com=20 [mailto:neil.2.harrison@bt.com]
Sent: marted=EC 4 dicembre 2007 = 22.55
To: = Attila Takacs; tnadeau@lucidvision.com; = Diego=20 Caviglia
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE:=20 = draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

 

I'm=20 puzzled.  I read the draft and thought it was excellent.  It = is=20 addressing an important operational issue, ie a critical operational = OAM=20 requirement is to ensure that whatever mechanism (MP or CP) is used to = set-up/tear-down a connection (so this only applies to co-cs or co-ps=20 modes....the cl-ps mode does not have connections of course) is = harmonised to=20 the activation/deactivation of the OAM.....specifically a CV/CC=20 flow.   If we don't ensure this then there will be obvious=20 operational problems.  This is essentially what the draft is=20 about.

 

Further,=20 GMPLS is a generic OOB CP technique.....it is not a specific = layer=20 network technology per se (but it is specific in it's choice of = signalling and=20 routing components).  So one can apply a largely similar (GMPLS) = CP=20 technique to all co-cs mode technologies (whether they are = partitioning a=20 space, freq or time resource - see Note) and co-ps mode = technologies=20 (which only applies to partitioning a time resource - see Note) on the = assumption that the technology is correctly architected in the DP for = the mode=20 considered.  It's pretty hard not to correctly architect the = co-cs=20 mode, but it's quite easy to incorrectly architect the co-ps mode, eg = one=20 can't violate the rules of a connection in the co-cs mode but one can = in the=20 co-ps mode.

 

Note -=20 When we partition a time resource in regular time-slices we create a = co-cs=20 mode layer network.  When we partition a time resource in = irregular=20 time-slices we create a co-ps mode layer network.  More = information on=20 labelling and resource partitioning can be found in the work on = unified=20 modelling (of networks) in G.800.

 

regards,=20 Neil

-----Original=20 Message-----
From:=20 owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Attila Takacs
Sent: 05 December 2007=20 02:03
To: Thomas = Nadeau;=20 Diego Caviglia
Cc:=20 ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject:=20 RE:=20 = draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

Hi=20 Tom,

please = see=20 inline.

Best=20 regards,

Attila

 

From:=20 Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December = 05, 2007=20 2:19 AM
To: = Diego=20 Caviglia
Cc:=20 Attila Takacs;=20 ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com
Subject: Re:=20 = draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

 

On Dec 4, 2007, at 7:33 PM, Diego = Caviglia=20 wrote:



Hi=20 Thomas,

           =      =20 My understanding of the ID was that RSVP-TE can be used to = =91piggyback=92 CFM=20 set-up, otherwise the scenario is: usage of RSVP-TE to set-up the = LSP and=20 NMS (meaning everything that is not control plane) to enable to = CFM for=20 the LSP.

 

As I understand it, the IEEE is working = on set-up=20 of CFM (and MEPs), as are some vendors I know.=20 *)

This to me seems like the right way to = do=20 this.

 

IEEE = specified CFM=20 and MIBs to setup CFM. 

Diego's = summary is=20 correct: one can use an NMS or a control plane to setup the = data plane.=20 In this case we propose to use GMPLS to setup the data plane: = both=20 forwarding + OAM.

From your comment I = see that=20 you=92re not happy with the fact the ID is so technology = specific am I=20 right?  

 

Precisely; its gluing CFM to = RSVP-TE/GMPLS as a=20 transport. 

I do not = see your=20 point with gluing. What do you mean by "as transport"? GMPLS is just = controlling OAM, CFM is run solely in the data=20 plane.

 

 

If yes do you agree = with the=20 fact that could be useful in general to use the same signaling = =91session=92=20 to set-up the LSP and to enable the=20 CFM?

 

No, I do not agree.  Again, if CFM = is to be=20 set-up e2e, let the IEEE define this. Leave GMPLS to=20 CCAMP.

 

 

Sorry, I = cannot=20 follow.

 

 

 

 

 

--Tom

 

 



 Best = Regards


Diego

From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org = [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org<= /A>] On Behalf Of Thomas=20 Nadeau
Sent: marted=EC 4 dicembre = 2007=20 11.30
To: Attila=20 Takacs
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com
= Subject: Re:=20 draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

On = Dec 4,=20 2007, at 1:51 PM, Attila = Takacs=20 wrote:




Hi=20 Thomas,

Thank=20 you for the comments!

Please = see=20 answers inline.

Best=20 regards,
Attila

From: Thomas Nadeau=20 [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, = 2007 2:58=20 PM
To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Cc: Attila Takacs; balazs.gero@ericsson.com
= Subject: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth= -oam-ext-00.txt

After=20 reading this draft, I have some=20 = questions/comments.

1) = Overall, I am=20 concerned that the definition of a new TLV and these procedures=20 = represent 

what amounts to a laying = violation=20 and ask that the ADs take a look at=20 this

approach closely. This = is similar=20 to the now-rejected approach that was=20 proposed

in the l2vpn WG about = munging CFM=20 + PWs.  To my reading, this is=20 essentially

the same thing. If you = want to run=20 CFM, run it natively over the ethernet interfaces=20 and

have no regard for the = underlying=20 topology (GMPLS, PWs, etc...) otherwise=20 you 

will be creating a mess = for=20 implementations and interoperability.  

The=20 application of the draft is exactly for what you are calling = out:=20 when CFM is run natively over the Ethernet interfaces. The = document=20 focuses on GELS and Ethernet LSPs. That is, to establish = CFM=20 entities for GMPLS controlled Ethernet LSPs. Hence, I think = there is=20 no layer violation issue.

          This solution specifically only works for = GMPLS=20 ethernet LSPs, right?=20  

What do I do if I want to = set up=20 MPLS ethernet LSPs (i.e.: PWs) and do CFM over those?=20 Oh,

that is a different = solution, right?=20  Then what do I do if I want to run CFM over some new type=20 of

ethernet LSP in the = future? More=20 protocol hacks?  The point is to use CFM over an ethernet=20 interface

without the underlying = layers=20 knowing. This is good networking architecture design, that=20 simplifies

implementations and makes = them more=20 robust, as well as makes using them operationally=20 much

easier. 

2) The=20 introductory sections in this draft give a lot of discussion = about=20 fast fault detection.=20 I

am = puzzled by this=20 given that GMPLS networks tend to run over quickly=20 = self-healing

optical = infrastructures. Is it therefore truly necessary to = motivate=20 this work = by

requiring fast=20 = CFMs?

It is = right=20 that frequent CCMs are not required if the layers below Ethernet = handle=20 protection. However, the ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs where = Ethernet=20 is not just a single hop above a transport = LSP. In this=20 case Ethernet layer (for clarity GELS) may provide = protection for=20 Ethernet LSPs. In any case,  the whole point of the ID = is to=20 allow for the appropriate configuration of CFM for Ethernet LSPs = with=20 GMPLS.

3) This=20 document does not cover E-LMI. Why=20 = not?

E-LMI = is run=20 over the MEF UNI. The ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs within a=20 network.

For the = purposes of=20 this document, we only discuss Ethernet = OAM

  =20 [IEEE-CFM] aspects that are relevant for the connectivity=20 monitoring

  =20 of bidirectional point-to-point PBB-TE connections.=20  

4)=20 Is this the right place to define this document or should this = be done=20 in GELS?

Well, = GELS is=20 done in CCAMP...this seems to be the right = place.

5)=20   In section 2 you make the following=20 statement:

2. =20 GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions

    To simplify = the=20 configuration of connectivity monitoring, when=20 an

  =20 Ethernet LSP is signalled the associated MEPs should be=20 automatically

    = established. =20 Further more, GMPLS signalling should be able=20 to

  enable/disable=20 connectivity monitoring of a particular Ethernet=20 LSP.

To=20 my point in #1 above, you should use the native CFM = functionality over=20 the ethernet interface and = signal

those=20 capabilities to the bridges at both ends using the IEEE CFM = signaling=20 procedures (when and if they

are=20 created).  If you want to test the underlying GMPLS = LSP(s), then=20 you should use some

other=20 mechanism defined for that layer such as the work stated=20 in draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt=

See = the=20 note to your point #1. There is no relation to the=20 gmpls-LSP-ping draft. 

          The point I am making is that perhaps it=20 should.

          --Tom

 

= --Boundary_(ID_ri+RKGJ58xhymCKK5aRKfw)-- From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Wed Dec 05 12:23:03 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Izxxf-00082H-Nz for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 12:23:03 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Izxxe-0002mf-JY for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 12:23:03 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1IzxUh-000B4w-8u for ccamp-data@psg.com; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 16:53:07 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE, RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [193.180.251.62] (helo=mailgw4.ericsson.se) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1IzxUM-000B3b-TK for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 16:52:58 +0000 Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 269A621786; Wed, 5 Dec 2007 17:52:45 +0100 (CET) X-AuditID: c1b4fb3e-af6a0bb00000459d-db-4756d75c116a Received: from esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.254.123]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id E481321551; Wed, 5 Dec 2007 17:52:44 +0100 (CET) Received: from esealmw110.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.200.78]) by esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 5 Dec 2007 17:52:44 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C8375F.41AC3A97" Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 17:52:41 +0100 Message-ID: <0428AC48A879ED46A94F39D5665DF684DF2FC0@esealmw110.eemea.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <238388FD-E9A8-47B3-A52D-8DBFBDFE33DB@lucidvision.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Thread-Index: Acg23NTgoIFKofLLTTqsgyKk8dFwjQAgfBwg From: "Diego Caviglia" To: "Thomas Nadeau" Cc: "Attila Takacs" , , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Dec 2007 16:52:44.0760 (UTC) FILETIME=[41EE0D80:01C8375F] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 50f4bf4c20cea80121dceb5f684ae6af This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C8375F.41AC3A97 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Thomas, Please see some more comment in line. =20 BR =20 Diego =20 ________________________________ From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com]=20 Sent: marted=EC 4 dicembre 2007 17.19 To: Diego Caviglia Cc: Attila Takacs; ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt =20 =20 On Dec 4, 2007, at 7:33 PM, Diego Caviglia wrote: Hi Thomas, My understanding of the ID was that RSVP-TE can be used = to 'piggyback' CFM set-up, otherwise the scenario is: usage of RSVP-TE = to set-up the LSP and NMS (meaning everything that is not control plane) = to enable to CFM for the LSP. =20 As I understand it, the IEEE is working on set-up of CFM (and = MEPs), as are some vendors I know. *) This to me seems like the right way to do this. [DC] no doubt about this and in fact I don't think the ID was about = defining the CFM is was just about the usage of GMPLS to enable it. From your comment I see that you're not happy with the fact the ID is so = technology specific am I right? =20 =20 Precisely; its gluing CFM to RSVP-TE/GMPLS as a transport.=20 If yes do you agree with the fact that could be useful in general to use = the same signaling 'session' to set-up the LSP and to enable the CFM? =20 No, I do not agree. Again, if CFM is to be set-up e2e, let = the IEEE define this. Leave GMPLS to CCAMP. [DC] I think that we have a total agreement on this, no one is saying = that CCAMP has to define the or re-define the CFM as no one redefined = g707 or other SDH ITU-T spec when we developed GMPLS for SONET/SDH. =20 --Tom =20 =20 Best Regards Diego =20 ________________________________ From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On = Behalf Of Thomas Nadeau Sent: marted=EC 4 dicembre 2007 11.30 To: Attila Takacs Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt =20 =20 On Dec 4, 2007, at 1:51 PM, Attila Takacs wrote: Hi Thomas, =20 Thank you for the comments! Please see answers inline. =20 Best regards, Attila =20 =09 ________________________________ From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com]=20 Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 2:58 PM To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Cc: Attila Takacs; balazs.gero@ericsson.com Subject: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt =20 =20 After reading this draft, I have some questions/comments. =20 1) Overall, I am concerned that the definition of a new TLV and these = procedures represent=20 what amounts to a laying violation and ask that the ADs take a look at = this approach closely. This is similar to the now-rejected approach that was = proposed in the l2vpn WG about munging CFM + PWs. To my reading, this is = essentially the same thing. If you want to run CFM, run it natively over the = ethernet interfaces and have no regard for the underlying topology (GMPLS, PWs, etc...) = otherwise you=20 will be creating a mess for implementations and interoperability. =20 The application of the draft is exactly for what you are calling out: = when CFM is run natively over the Ethernet interfaces. The document = focuses on GELS and Ethernet LSPs. That is, to establish CFM entities = for GMPLS controlled Ethernet LSPs. Hence, I think there is no layer = violation issue. =20 This solution specifically only works for GMPLS ethernet LSPs, = right? =20 What do I do if I want to set up MPLS ethernet LSPs (i.e.: PWs) and do = CFM over those? Oh, that is a different solution, right? Then what do I do if I want to run = CFM over some new type of ethernet LSP in the future? More protocol hacks? The point is to use = CFM over an ethernet interface without the underlying layers knowing. This is good networking = architecture design, that simplifies implementations and makes them more robust, as well as makes using them = operationally much easier.=20 2) The introductory sections in this draft give a lot of discussion = about fast fault detection. I am puzzled by this given that GMPLS networks tend to run over quickly = self-healing optical infrastructures. Is it therefore truly necessary to motivate = this work by requiring fast CFMs? It is right that frequent CCMs are not required if the layers below = Ethernet handle protection. However, the ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs = where Ethernet is not just a single hop above a transport LSP. In this = case Ethernet layer (for clarity GELS) may provide protection for = Ethernet LSPs. In any case, the whole point of the ID is to allow for = the appropriate configuration of CFM for Ethernet LSPs with GMPLS. =20 3) This document does not cover E-LMI. Why not? E-LMI is run over the MEF UNI. The ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs within a = network. =20 =20 For the purposes of this document, we only discuss Ethernet OAM [IEEE-CFM] aspects that are relevant for the connectivity = monitoring of bidirectional point-to-point PBB-TE connections. =20 =20 4) Is this the right place to define this document or should this be = done in GELS? Well, GELS is done in CCAMP...this seems to be the right place. =20 =20 5) In section 2 you make the following statement: =20 2. GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions =20 To simplify the configuration of connectivity monitoring, when an Ethernet LSP is signalled the associated MEPs should be = automatically established. Further more, GMPLS signalling should be able to enable/disable connectivity monitoring of a particular Ethernet LSP. =20 =20 To my point in #1 above, you should use the native CFM functionality = over the ethernet interface and signal those capabilities to the bridges at both ends using the IEEE CFM = signaling procedures (when and if they are created). If you want to test the underlying GMPLS LSP(s), then = you should use some other mechanism defined for that layer such as the work stated in = draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt See the note to your point #1. There is no relation to the = gmpls-LSP-ping draft.=20 =20 The point I am making is that perhaps it should. =20 --Tom =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C8375F.41AC3A97 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi = Thomas,

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0 =A0=A0=A0=A0Please see some more comment in line.

 

BR

 

Diego

 

From: = Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com]
Sent: marted=EC 4 = dicembre 2007 17.19
To: Diego Caviglia
Cc: Attila Takacs; ccamp@ops.ietf.org; = balazs.gero@ericsson.com
Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

 

 

On Dec 4, 2007, at 7:33 PM, Diego Caviglia = wrote:



Hi = Thomas,

      =            My understanding of the ID was that RSVP-TE can be used to = ‘piggyback’ CFM set-up, otherwise the scenario is: usage of RSVP-TE to set-up the LSP = and NMS (meaning everything that is not control plane) to enable to CFM for the = LSP.

 

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 = As I understand it, the IEEE is working on set-up of CFM (and MEPs), as are = some vendors I know. *)

This to me seems like the right way to do = this.

[DC] no doubt about this and in fact I don’t = think the ID was about defining the CFM is was just about the usage of GMPLS to = enable it.



From your comment I see that you’re not happy with the fact the ID is so = technology specific am I right?  

 

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 = Precisely; its gluing CFM to RSVP-TE/GMPLS as a transport. 



If yes do you agree with the fact that could be useful in general to use the same signaling ‘session’ to set-up the LSP and to enable the = CFM?

 

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 = No, I do not agree.  Again, if CFM is to be set-up e2e, let the IEEE = define this. Leave GMPLS to CCAMP.

[DC] I think that we have a total agreement on this, = no one is saying that CCAMP has to define the or re-define the CFM as no one = redefined g707 or other SDH ITU-T spec when we developed GMPLS for = SONET/SDH.

 

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 = --Tom

 

 



 Best = Regards


Diego

 

 

 

On Dec 4, 2007, at 1:51 PM, = Attila Takacs = wrote:




Hi Thomas,

 

Thank you for the = comments!

Please see answers = inline.

 

Best regards,
Attila

 

From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 = 2:58 PM
To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Cc: Attila Takacs; balazs.gero@ericsson.com
= Subject: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth= -oam-ext-00.txt

 

 

After reading this draft, I have = some questions/comments.

 

1) Overall, I am concerned = that the definition of a new TLV and these procedures = represent 

what amounts to a laying = violation and ask that the ADs take a look at = this

approach closely. This is similar = to the now-rejected approach that was = proposed

in the l2vpn WG about munging CFM = + PWs.  To my reading, this is = essentially

the same thing. If you want to = run CFM, run it natively over the ethernet interfaces = and

have no regard for the underlying = topology (GMPLS, PWs, etc...) otherwise = you 

will be creating a mess for implementations and interoperability.  

The application of the draft = is exactly for what you are calling out: when CFM is run natively over the Ethernet interfaces. The document focuses on GELS and Ethernet = LSPs. That is, to establish CFM entities for GMPLS controlled Ethernet LSPs. Hence, I think there is no layer violation = issue.

 

     &nbs= p;    This solution specifically = only works for GMPLS ethernet LSPs, right?  

What do I do if I want to set up = MPLS ethernet LSPs (i.e.: PWs) and do CFM over those? = Oh,

that is a different solution, = right?  Then what do I do if I want to run CFM over some new type = of

ethernet LSP in the future? More = protocol hacks?  The point is to use CFM over an ethernet = interface

without the underlying layers = knowing. This is good networking architecture design, that = simplifies

implementations and makes them = more robust, as well as makes using them operationally = much

easier. 

2) The introductory sections = in this draft give a lot of discussion about fast fault detection. = I

am puzzled by this given that = GMPLS networks tend to run over quickly = self-healing

optical infrastructures. Is it therefore truly necessary to motivate this work = by

requiring fast = CFMs?

It is right that frequent CCMs are = not required if the layers below Ethernet handle protection. However, the ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs where Ethernet is not just a single hop above a transport LSP. In this case Ethernet layer = (for clarity GELS) may provide protection for Ethernet LSPs. In any = case,  the whole point of the ID is to allow for the appropriate configuration = of CFM for Ethernet LSPs with GMPLS.

 

3) This document does not cover = E-LMI. Why not?

E-LMI is run over the MEF UNI. = The ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs within a network.

 

 

For = the purposes of this document, we only discuss Ethernet = OAM

   = [IEEE-CFM] aspects that are relevant for the connectivity = monitoring

   = of bidirectional point-to-point PBB-TE connections. =  

 <= /u1:p>

4) Is this = the right place to define this document or should this be done in = GELS?

Well, GELS is done in CCAMP...this = seems to be the right place.

 

 <= /u1:p>

5)   In = section 2 you make the following statement:

 <= /u1:p>

2.  = GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions

 =

    To simplify the = configuration of connectivity monitoring, when an

   = Ethernet LSP is signalled the associated MEPs should be = automatically

    established.  = Further more, GMPLS signalling should be able to

  e= nable/disable connectivity monitoring of a particular Ethernet = LSP.

 <= /u1:p>

 <= /u1:p>

To my point = in #1 above, you should use the native CFM functionality over the ethernet = interface and signal

those = capabilities to the bridges at both ends using the IEEE CFM signaling procedures (when = and if they

are = created).  If you want to test the underlying GMPLS LSP(s), then you should = use some

other = mechanism defined for that layer such as the work stated = in draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt

See the note to your point #1. = There is no relation to the gmpls-LSP-ping = draft. 

 

     &nbs= p;    The point I am making is that = perhaps it should.

 

     &nbs= p;    --Tom

 

 

 =

 <= /u1:p>

 <= /u1:p>

 

 

------_=_NextPart_001_01C8375F.41AC3A97-- From Kyvan.dilorenzo@architektur-baubiologie.de Wed Dec 05 14:29:43 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzzwF-0000EB-TU for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 14:29:43 -0500 Received: from [85.116.154.102] (helo=[85.116.154.102]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzzwF-0005x6-2O for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 14:29:43 -0500 Received: from user-7a5d6e7c16 ([130.142.164.41]:6684 "EHLO user-7a5d6e7c16" smtp-auth: TLS-CIPHER: TLS-PEER-CN1: ) by [85.116.154.102] with ESMTP id S22SJFDQNEWKYXMQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Dec 2007 20:29:56 +0100 Message-ID: <000301c83775$2cdcd370$669a7455@user7a5d6e7c16> From: "Kyvan dilorenzo" To: Subject: erecting Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 20:29:38 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0005_01C8377D.8EA3AC70" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 071205-2, 05/12/2007), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Score: 2.1 (++) X-Scan-Signature: b19722fc8d3865b147c75ae2495625f2 ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C8377D.8EA3AC70 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi ccamp-archive acquiring a boner has never been easier, check out this http://humanthough.com Kyvan dilorenzo ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C8377D.8EA3AC70 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi ccamp-archive
acquiring a boner has never been easier, check = out=20 this
http://humanthough.com
Kyvan dilorenzo
------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C8377D.8EA3AC70-- From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Wed Dec 05 14:54:47 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J00KV-0003Do-8n for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 14:54:47 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J00KS-0004Lc-7T for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 14:54:47 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J003s-000070-Cj for ccamp-data@psg.com; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 19:37:36 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE, RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [193.180.251.62] (helo=mailgw4.ericsson.se) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J003d-00003o-Nz for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 19:37:29 +0000 Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id B05EE21777; Wed, 5 Dec 2007 20:37:17 +0100 (CET) X-AuditID: c1b4fb3e-ae69ebb00000459d-e5-4756fded54a7 Received: from esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.254.123]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 8C0B821049; Wed, 5 Dec 2007 20:37:17 +0100 (CET) Received: from esealmw116.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.200.7]) by esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 5 Dec 2007 20:37:17 +0100 x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C83776.3E1B4EEC" Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 20:37:16 +0100 Message-ID: <53CCFDD6E346CB43994852666C210E910262460F@esealmw116.eemea.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <002c01c83760$5edf74f0$42418182@dan> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Thread-Index: Acg3YGbnOB7kck6nQPSKbkKvf3bh5wADu/Jw References: <0428AC48A879ED46A94F39D5665DF684DF2F9A@esealmw110.eemea.ericsson.se> <002c01c83760$5edf74f0$42418182@dan> From: "Attila Takacs" To: "Dan Li" , "Diego Caviglia" , , Cc: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Dec 2007 19:37:17.0085 (UTC) FILETIME=[3E4B4CD0:01C83776] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 495218886ab5f5f0347e16d82ca53132 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C83776.3E1B4EEC Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all, =20 Neil's and Dan's summary are exact. Thanks for your comments! =20 Maybe the title of the ID caused the misunderstanding, it would say more = if it would read: "GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions to *Control* Ethernet OAM". Nevertheless, when updating the ID we will clarify our point even more. =20 Best regards, Attila ________________________________ From: Dan Li [mailto:danli@huawei.com]=20 Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 6:01 PM To: Diego Caviglia; neil.2.harrison@bt.com; Attila Takacs; = tnadeau@lucidvision.com Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt =09 =09 Hi, =20 I think there is a misunderstanding with respect to the objective of = this draft.=20 =20 As I read this draft, it describes how to extend the RSVP protocol to = support the configuration/enable the OAM function of Ethernet LSP, which = I think is a good thing to do, it is not saying to use signaling = protocol to do the OAM work. But anyway, it may be necessary to clarify = the objective at the beginning of this draft. =20 Regards, =20 Dan =20 =20 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Diego Caviglia =20 To: neil.2.harrison@bt.com ; Attila Takacs = ; tnadeau@lucidvision.com=20 Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org=20 Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 12:27 AM Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Hi Neil, Yes I totally agree with your analysis. =20 The is not going to redefine or reinvent the OAM that, as Thomas as = pointed out, is done by IEEE, the ID just specify how to use a control = plane mechanism (GMPLS) set-up at the same time data plane circuit and = the related OAM. =20 Frankly specking I don't see any layer violation here. =20 BR =20 Diego =20 =09 ________________________________ From: neil.2.harrison@bt.com [mailto:neil.2.harrison@bt.com]=20 Sent: marted=EC 4 dicembre 2007 22.55 To: Attila Takacs; tnadeau@lucidvision.com; Diego Caviglia Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt =20 I'm puzzled. I read the draft and thought it was excellent. It is = addressing an important operational issue, ie a critical operational OAM = requirement is to ensure that whatever mechanism (MP or CP) is used to = set-up/tear-down a connection (so this only applies to co-cs or co-ps = modes....the cl-ps mode does not have connections of course) is = harmonised to the activation/deactivation of the OAM.....specifically a = CV/CC flow. If we don't ensure this then there will be obvious = operational problems. This is essentially what the draft is about. =20 Further, GMPLS is a generic OOB CP technique.....it is not a specific = layer network technology per se (but it is specific in it's choice of = signalling and routing components). So one can apply a largely similar = (GMPLS) CP technique to all co-cs mode technologies (whether they are = partitioning a space, freq or time resource - see Note) and co-ps mode = technologies (which only applies to partitioning a time resource - see = Note) on the assumption that the technology is correctly architected in = the DP for the mode considered. It's pretty hard not to correctly = architect the co-cs mode, but it's quite easy to incorrectly architect = the co-ps mode, eg one can't violate the rules of a connection in the = co-cs mode but one can in the co-ps mode. =20 Note - When we partition a time resource in regular time-slices we = create a co-cs mode layer network. When we partition a time resource in = irregular time-slices we create a co-ps mode layer network. More = information on labelling and resource partitioning can be found in the = work on unified modelling (of networks) in G.800. =20 regards, Neil -----Original Message----- From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On = Behalf Of Attila Takacs Sent: 05 December 2007 02:03 To: Thomas Nadeau; Diego Caviglia Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Hi Tom, please see inline. Best regards, Attila =20 =09 ________________________________ From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com]=20 Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 2:19 AM To: Diego Caviglia Cc: Attila Takacs; ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt =20 On Dec 4, 2007, at 7:33 PM, Diego Caviglia wrote: =09 =09 =09 =09 Hi Thomas, My understanding of the ID was that RSVP-TE can be = used to 'piggyback' CFM set-up, otherwise the scenario is: usage of = RSVP-TE to set-up the LSP and NMS (meaning everything that is not = control plane) to enable to CFM for the LSP. =20 As I understand it, the IEEE is working on set-up of CFM (and MEPs), = as are some vendors I know. *) This to me seems like the right way to do this. =20 IEEE specified CFM and MIBs to setup CFM.=20 Diego's summary is correct: one can use an NMS or a control plane to = setup the data plane. In this case we propose to use GMPLS to setup the = data plane: both forwarding + OAM. =09 =09 From your comment I see that you're not happy with the fact the ID = is so technology specific am I right? =20 =20 Precisely; its gluing CFM to RSVP-TE/GMPLS as a transport.=20 I do not see your point with gluing. What do you mean by "as = transport"? GMPLS is just controlling OAM, CFM is run solely in the data = plane. =20 =20 =09 =09 If yes do you agree with the fact that could be useful in general = to use the same signaling 'session' to set-up the LSP and to enable the = CFM? =20 No, I do not agree. Again, if CFM is to be set-up e2e, let the IEEE = define this. Leave GMPLS to CCAMP. =20 =20 Sorry, I cannot follow. =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 --Tom =20 =20 =09 =09 =09 =09 Best Regards =09 Diego =09 =09 ________________________________ From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On = Behalf Of Thomas Nadeau Sent: marted=EC 4 dicembre 2007 11.30 To: Attila Takacs Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt On Dec 4, 2007, at 1:51 PM, Attila Takacs wrote: =09 =09 =09 =09 Hi Thomas, Thank you for the comments! Please see answers inline. Best regards, Attila =09 =09 ________________________________ From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com]=20 Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 2:58 PM To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Cc: Attila Takacs; balazs.gero@ericsson.com Subject: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt After reading this draft, I have some questions/comments. 1) Overall, I am concerned that the definition of a new TLV and = these procedures represent=20 what amounts to a laying violation and ask that the ADs take a look = at this approach closely. This is similar to the now-rejected approach that = was proposed in the l2vpn WG about munging CFM + PWs. To my reading, this is = essentially the same thing. If you want to run CFM, run it natively over the = ethernet interfaces and have no regard for the underlying topology (GMPLS, PWs, etc...) = otherwise you=20 will be creating a mess for implementations and interoperability. =20 The application of the draft is exactly for what you are calling = out: when CFM is run natively over the Ethernet interfaces. The document = focuses on GELS and Ethernet LSPs. That is, to establish CFM entities = for GMPLS controlled Ethernet LSPs. Hence, I think there is no layer = violation issue. This solution specifically only works for GMPLS ethernet = LSPs, right? =20 What do I do if I want to set up MPLS ethernet LSPs (i.e.: PWs) and = do CFM over those? Oh, that is a different solution, right? Then what do I do if I want to = run CFM over some new type of ethernet LSP in the future? More protocol hacks? The point is to = use CFM over an ethernet interface without the underlying layers knowing. This is good networking = architecture design, that simplifies implementations and makes them more robust, as well as makes using = them operationally much easier.=20 2) The introductory sections in this draft give a lot of discussion = about fast fault detection. I am puzzled by this given that GMPLS networks tend to run over = quickly self-healing optical infrastructures. Is it therefore truly necessary to = motivate this work by requiring fast CFMs? It is right that frequent CCMs are not required if the layers below = Ethernet handle protection. However, the ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs = where Ethernet is not just a single hop above a transport LSP. In this = case Ethernet layer (for clarity GELS) may provide protection for = Ethernet LSPs. In any case, the whole point of the ID is to allow for = the appropriate configuration of CFM for Ethernet LSPs with GMPLS. 3) This document does not cover E-LMI. Why not? E-LMI is run over the MEF UNI. The ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs = within a network. For the purposes of this document, we only discuss Ethernet OAM [IEEE-CFM] aspects that are relevant for the connectivity = monitoring of bidirectional point-to-point PBB-TE connections. =20 4) Is this the right place to define this document or should this = be done in GELS? Well, GELS is done in CCAMP...this seems to be the right place. 5) In section 2 you make the following statement: 2. GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions To simplify the configuration of connectivity monitoring, when = an Ethernet LSP is signalled the associated MEPs should be = automatically established. Further more, GMPLS signalling should be able to enable/disable connectivity monitoring of a particular Ethernet = LSP. To my point in #1 above, you should use the native CFM = functionality over the ethernet interface and signal those capabilities to the bridges at both ends using the IEEE CFM = signaling procedures (when and if they are created). If you want to test the underlying GMPLS LSP(s), = then you should use some other mechanism defined for that layer such as the work stated in = draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt See the note to your point #1. There is no relation to the = gmpls-LSP-ping draft.=20 The point I am making is that perhaps it should. --Tom =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C83776.3E1B4EEC Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message=
Hi=20 all,
 
Neil's and Dan's summary are exact. Thanks = for your=20 comments!
 
Maybe the title of the ID caused the=20 misunderstanding, it would say more if it would read: "GMPLS = RSVP-TE=20 Extensions to *Control* Ethernet OAM".
Nevertheless, when updating the ID we=20 will clarify our point even = more.
 
Best = regards,
Attila

From: Dan Li = [mailto:danli@huawei.com]=20
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 6:01 PM
To: = Diego=20 Caviglia; neil.2.harrison@bt.com; Attila Takacs;=20 tnadeau@lucidvision.com
Cc: = ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject:=20 Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

Hi,
 
I think there is a misunderstanding with respect to the = objective of=20 this draft.
 
As I read this draft, it describes how to extend = the RSVP=20 protocol to support the configuration/enable the OAM function of = Ethernet=20 LSP, which I think is a good thing to do, it is not saying to use = signaling protocol to do the OAM work. But anyway, it may be necessary = to=20 clarify the objective at the beginning of this draft.
 
Regards,
 
Dan
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Diego Caviglia =
To: neil.2.harrison@bt.com ; = Attila Takacs ; tnadeau@lucidvision.com =
Sent: Thursday, December 06, = 2007 12:27=20 AM
Subject: RE:=20 draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

Hi=20 Neil,

          =20 Yes I totally agree with your analysis.

 

The is = not going to=20 redefine or reinvent the OAM that, as Thomas as pointed out, is done = by=20 IEEE, the ID just specify how to use a control plane mechanism = (GMPLS)=20 set-up at the same time data plane circuit and the related=20 OAM.

 

Frankly = specking I=20 don=92t see any layer violation here.

 

BR

 

Diego

 

From: neil.2.harrison@bt.com=20 [mailto:neil.2.harrison@bt.com]
Sent: marted=EC 4 dicembre = 2007=20 22.55
To: = Attila Takacs; tnadeau@lucidvision.com; = Diego=20 Caviglia
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE:=20 = draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

 

I'm=20 puzzled.  I read the draft and thought it was excellent.  = It is=20 addressing an important operational issue, ie a critical operational = OAM=20 requirement is to ensure that whatever mechanism (MP or CP) is used = to=20 set-up/tear-down a connection (so this only applies to co-cs or = co-ps=20 modes....the cl-ps mode does not have connections of course) is = harmonised=20 to the activation/deactivation of the OAM.....specifically a CV/CC=20 flow.   If we don't ensure this then there will be obvious = operational problems.  This is essentially what the draft is=20 about.

 

Further,=20 GMPLS is a generic OOB CP technique.....it is not a = specific layer=20 network technology per se (but it is specific in it's choice of = signalling=20 and routing components).  So one can apply a largely similar = (GMPLS) CP=20 technique to all co-cs mode technologies (whether they are = partitioning a=20 space, freq or time resource - see Note) and co-ps mode = technologies=20 (which only applies to partitioning a time resource - see Note) on = the=20 assumption that the technology is correctly architected in the DP = for the=20 mode considered.  It's pretty hard not to correctly = architect the=20 co-cs mode, but it's quite easy to incorrectly architect the co-ps = mode, eg=20 one can't violate the rules of a connection in the co-cs mode but = one can in=20 the co-ps mode.

 

Note -=20 When we partition a time resource in regular time-slices we create a = co-cs=20 mode layer network.  When we partition a time resource in = irregular=20 time-slices we create a co-ps mode layer network.  More = information on=20 labelling and resource partitioning can be found in the work on = unified=20 modelling (of networks) in G.800.

 

regards,=20 Neil

-----Original=20 Message-----
From:=20 owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] = On Behalf Of = Attila = Takacs
Sent: 05 December 2007=20 02:03
To: = Thomas Nadeau;=20 Diego Caviglia
Cc:=20 ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE:=20 = draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

Hi=20 Tom,

please = see=20 inline.

Best=20 regards,

Attila

 

From:=20 Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December = 05, 2007=20 2:19 AM
To: = Diego=20 Caviglia
Cc:=20 Attila Takacs; = ccamp@ops.ietf.org;=20 balazs.gero@ericsson.com
Subject: Re:=20 = draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

 

On Dec 4, 2007, at 7:33 PM, Diego = Caviglia=20 wrote:



Hi=20 Thomas,

           =      =20 My understanding of the ID was that RSVP-TE can be used to = =91piggyback=92=20 CFM set-up, otherwise the scenario is: usage of RSVP-TE to = set-up the=20 LSP and NMS (meaning everything that is not control plane) to = enable to=20 CFM for the LSP.

 

As I understand it, the IEEE is = working on=20 set-up of CFM (and MEPs), as are some vendors I know.=20 *)

This to me seems like the right way to = do=20 this.

 

IEEE = specified=20 CFM and MIBs to setup = CFM. 

Diego's = summary=20 is correct: one can use an NMS or a control plane to setup = the data=20 plane. In this case we propose to use GMPLS to setup the data = plane:=20 both forwarding + OAM.

From your comment I = see that=20 you=92re not happy with the fact the ID is so technology = specific am I=20 right?  

 

Precisely; its gluing CFM to = RSVP-TE/GMPLS as a=20 transport. 

I do = not see your=20 point with gluing. What do you mean by "as transport"? GMPLS is = just=20 controlling OAM, CFM is run solely in the data=20 plane.

 

 

If yes do you agree = with the=20 fact that could be useful in general to use the same signaling = =91session=92 to set-up the LSP and to enable the=20 CFM?

 

No, I do not agree.  Again, if = CFM is to be=20 set-up e2e, let the IEEE define this. Leave GMPLS to=20 CCAMP.

 

 

Sorry, = I cannot=20 follow.

 

 

 

 

 

--Tom

 

 



 Best=20 Regards


Diego

From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org = [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org<= /A>] On Behalf Of Thomas=20 Nadeau
Sent: marted=EC 4 dicembre = 2007=20 11.30
To: Attila = Takacs
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com
= Subject: Re:=20 draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

On = Dec 4,=20 2007, at 1:51 PM, Attila Takacs=20 wrote:




Hi=20 Thomas,

Thank=20 you for the comments!

Please see=20 answers inline.

Best=20 regards,
Attila

From: Thomas=20 Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, December = 04, 2007=20 2:58 PM
To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Cc: Attila Takacs; balazs.gero@ericsson.com
= Subject: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth= -oam-ext-00.txt

After=20 reading this draft, I have some=20 = questions/comments.

1)=20 Overall, I am concerned that the definition of a new TLV = and=20 these procedures=20 = represent 

what = amounts to a=20 laying violation and ask that the ADs take a look at=20 this

approach closely.=20 This is similar to the now-rejected approach that was=20 proposed

in the = l2vpn WG=20 about munging CFM + PWs.  To my reading, this is=20 = essentially

the = same thing. If=20 you want to run CFM, run it natively over the ethernet = interfaces=20 and

have no = regard for=20 the underlying topology (GMPLS, PWs, etc...) otherwise=20 you 

will be = creating a=20 mess for implementations and=20 interoperability.  

The=20 application of the draft is exactly for what you are = calling out:=20 when CFM is run natively over the Ethernet interfaces. The = document=20 focuses on GELS and Ethernet LSPs. That is, to = establish CFM=20 entities for GMPLS controlled Ethernet LSPs. Hence, I think = there=20 is no layer violation issue.

          This solution specifically only works for = GMPLS=20 ethernet LSPs, right?=20  

What do I do if I want = to set up=20 MPLS ethernet LSPs (i.e.: PWs) and do CFM over those?=20 Oh,

that is a different = solution,=20 right?  Then what do I do if I want to run CFM over some = new type=20 of

ethernet LSP in the = future? More=20 protocol hacks?  The point is to use CFM over an ethernet=20 interface

without the underlying = layers=20 knowing. This is good networking architecture design, that=20 simplifies

implementations and = makes them=20 more robust, as well as makes using them operationally=20 much

easier. 

2) The=20 introductory sections in this draft give a lot of discussion = about=20 fast fault detection.=20 I

am = puzzled by=20 this given that GMPLS networks tend to run over quickly=20 = self-healing

optical=20 infrastructures. Is it therefore truly necessary = to=20 motivate this work=20 by

requiring fast=20 = CFMs?

It = is right=20 that frequent CCMs are not required if the layers below = Ethernet=20 handle protection. However, the ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs = where=20 Ethernet is not just a single hop above a transport=20 LSP. In this case Ethernet layer (for clarity GELS) = may=20 provide protection for Ethernet LSPs. In any case,  = the=20 whole point of the ID is to allow for the appropriate = configuration of=20 CFM for Ethernet LSPs with GMPLS.

3)=20 This document does not cover E-LMI. Why=20 = not?

E-LMI is run=20 over the MEF UNI. The ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs within = a=20 network.

For the = purposes of=20 this document, we only discuss Ethernet=20 OAM

  =20 [IEEE-CFM] aspects that are relevant for the connectivity=20 monitoring

  =20 of bidirectional point-to-point PBB-TE connections.=20  

4)=20 Is this the right place to define this document or should = this be=20 done in GELS?

Well, GELS is=20 done in CCAMP...this seems to be the right = place.

5)=20   In section 2 you make the following=20 statement:

2. =20 GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions

    To = simplify the=20 configuration of connectivity monitoring, when=20 an

  =20 Ethernet LSP is signalled the associated MEPs should be=20 automatically

    = established. =20 Further more, GMPLS signalling should be able=20 to

  enable/disable=20 connectivity monitoring of a particular Ethernet=20 LSP.

To=20 my point in #1 above, you should use the native CFM = functionality=20 over the ethernet interface and = signal

those=20 capabilities to the bridges at both ends using the IEEE CFM=20 signaling procedures (when and if = they

are=20 created).  If you want to test the underlying GMPLS = LSP(s),=20 then you should use some

other=20 mechanism defined for that layer such as the work stated=20 in draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt=

See = the=20 note to your point #1. There is no relation to the=20 gmpls-LSP-ping draft. 

          The point I am making is that perhaps it=20 should.

          --Tom

 

= ------_=_NextPart_001_01C83776.3E1B4EEC-- From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Wed Dec 05 15:48:39 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J01Ad-00085i-7X for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 15:48:39 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J01Ab-0001LO-OB for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 15:48:39 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J010L-0005vQ-Rc for ccamp-data@psg.com; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 20:38:01 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [80.86.78.228] (helo=fw.testbed.se) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J00zb-0005q4-1N for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 20:37:46 +0000 Received: from MailerDaemon by fw.testbed.se with local-bsmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1J00zY-0001ES-Sx for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 21:37:12 +0100 Received: from [130.129.86.87] (port=4818) by fw.testbed.se with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1J00zR-0001E4-1W; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 21:37:05 +0100 Message-ID: <47570BE6.1020007@pi.se> Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 21:36:54 +0100 From: Loa Andersson Organization: Acreo AB User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dan Li CC: Diego Caviglia , neil.2.harrison@bt.com, Attila Takacs , tnadeau@lucidvision.com, ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt References: <0428AC48A879ED46A94F39D5665DF684DF2F9A@esealmw110.eemea.ericsson.se> <002c01c83760$5edf74f0$42418182@dan> In-Reply-To: <002c01c83760$5edf74f0$42418182@dan> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A0B0202.47570B5B.0229,ss=1,fgs=0 X-cff-SpamScore: 0(/) X-cff-SpamReport: ----- ----- Message is unknown to the spam scanner. X-cff-LastScanner: footer Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 142a000676f5977e1797396caab8b611 All, I'm normally a bit careful with models "layer networks" that seems to be a rather cumbersome way of explaining the obvious; however in this case when it is used demonstrate that no layer violation is at hand I is inclined to accept that result. I also agree with Dan that it seems to be a good idea to use RSVP-TE to provision OAM functionality is a good idea. With that it we should just go ahead and accept this as a ccamp work item. /Loa Dan Li wrote: > MessageHi, > > I think there is a misunderstanding with respect to the objective of this draft. > > As I read this draft, it describes how to extend the RSVP protocol to support the configuration/enable the OAM function of Ethernet LSP, which I think is a good thing to do, it is not saying to use signaling protocol to do the OAM work. But anyway, it may be necessary to clarify the objective at the beginning of this draft. > > Regards, > > Dan > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Diego Caviglia > To: neil.2.harrison@bt.com ; Attila Takacs ; tnadeau@lucidvision.com > Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org > Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 12:27 AM > Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt > > > Hi Neil, > > Yes I totally agree with your analysis. > > > > The is not going to redefine or reinvent the OAM that, as Thomas as pointed out, is done by IEEE, the ID just specify how to use a control plane mechanism (GMPLS) set-up at the same time data plane circuit and the related OAM. > > > > Frankly specking I don't see any layer violation here. > > > > BR > > > > Diego > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > From: neil.2.harrison@bt.com [mailto:neil.2.harrison@bt.com] > Sent: martedì 4 dicembre 2007 22.55 > To: Attila Takacs; tnadeau@lucidvision.com; Diego Caviglia > Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org > Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt > > > > I'm puzzled. I read the draft and thought it was excellent. It is addressing an important operational issue, ie a critical operational OAM requirement is to ensure that whatever mechanism (MP or CP) is used to set-up/tear-down a connection (so this only applies to co-cs or co-ps modes....the cl-ps mode does not have connections of course) is harmonised to the activation/deactivation of the OAM.....specifically a CV/CC flow. If we don't ensure this then there will be obvious operational problems. This is essentially what the draft is about. > > > > Further, GMPLS is a generic OOB CP technique.....it is not a specific layer network technology per se (but it is specific in it's choice of signalling and routing components). So one can apply a largely similar (GMPLS) CP technique to all co-cs mode technologies (whether they are partitioning a space, freq or time resource - see Note) and co-ps mode technologies (which only applies to partitioning a time resource - see Note) on the assumption that the technology is correctly architected in the DP for the mode considered. It's pretty hard not to correctly architect the co-cs mode, but it's quite easy to incorrectly architect the co-ps mode, eg one can't violate the rules of a connection in the co-cs mode but one can in the co-ps mode. > > > > Note - When we partition a time resource in regular time-slices we create a co-cs mode layer network. When we partition a time resource in irregular time-slices we create a co-ps mode layer network. More information on labelling and resource partitioning can be found in the work on unified modelling (of networks) in G.800. > > > > regards, Neil > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Attila Takacs > Sent: 05 December 2007 02:03 > To: Thomas Nadeau; Diego Caviglia > Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org > Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt > > Hi Tom, > > please see inline. > > Best regards, > > Attila > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com] > Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 2:19 AM > To: Diego Caviglia > Cc: Attila Takacs; ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com > Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt > > > > On Dec 4, 2007, at 7:33 PM, Diego Caviglia wrote: > > > > > > Hi Thomas, > > My understanding of the ID was that RSVP-TE can be used to 'piggyback' CFM set-up, otherwise the scenario is: usage of RSVP-TE to set-up the LSP and NMS (meaning everything that is not control plane) to enable to CFM for the LSP. > > > > As I understand it, the IEEE is working on set-up of CFM (and MEPs), as are some vendors I know. *) > > This to me seems like the right way to do this. > > > > IEEE specified CFM and MIBs to setup CFM. > > Diego's summary is correct: one can use an NMS or a control plane to setup the data plane. In this case we propose to use GMPLS to setup the data plane: both forwarding + OAM. > > From your comment I see that you're not happy with the fact the ID is so technology specific am I right? > > > > Precisely; its gluing CFM to RSVP-TE/GMPLS as a transport. > > I do not see your point with gluing. What do you mean by "as transport"? GMPLS is just controlling OAM, CFM is run solely in the data plane. > > > > > > If yes do you agree with the fact that could be useful in general to use the same signaling 'session' to set-up the LSP and to enable the CFM? > > > > No, I do not agree. Again, if CFM is to be set-up e2e, let the IEEE define this. Leave GMPLS to CCAMP. > > > > > > Sorry, I cannot follow. > > > > > > > > > > > > --Tom > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards > > > Diego > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Nadeau > Sent: martedì 4 dicembre 2007 11.30 > To: Attila Takacs > Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com > Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt > > On Dec 4, 2007, at 1:51 PM, Attila Takacs wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Thomas, > > Thank you for the comments! > > Please see answers inline. > > Best regards, > Attila > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com] > Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 2:58 PM > To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org > Cc: Attila Takacs; balazs.gero@ericsson.com > Subject: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt > > After reading this draft, I have some questions/comments. > > 1) Overall, I am concerned that the definition of a new TLV and these procedures represent > > what amounts to a laying violation and ask that the ADs take a look at this > > approach closely. This is similar to the now-rejected approach that was proposed > > in the l2vpn WG about munging CFM + PWs. To my reading, this is essentially > > the same thing. If you want to run CFM, run it natively over the ethernet interfaces and > > have no regard for the underlying topology (GMPLS, PWs, etc...) otherwise you > > will be creating a mess for implementations and interoperability. > > The application of the draft is exactly for what you are calling out: when CFM is run natively over the Ethernet interfaces. The document focuses on GELS and Ethernet LSPs. That is, to establish CFM entities for GMPLS controlled Ethernet LSPs. Hence, I think there is no layer violation issue. > > This solution specifically only works for GMPLS ethernet LSPs, right? > > What do I do if I want to set up MPLS ethernet LSPs (i.e.: PWs) and do CFM over those? Oh, > > that is a different solution, right? Then what do I do if I want to run CFM over some new type of > > ethernet LSP in the future? More protocol hacks? The point is to use CFM over an ethernet interface > > without the underlying layers knowing. This is good networking architecture design, that simplifies > > implementations and makes them more robust, as well as makes using them operationally much > > easier. > > 2) The introductory sections in this draft give a lot of discussion about fast fault detection. I > > am puzzled by this given that GMPLS networks tend to run over quickly self-healing > > optical infrastructures. Is it therefore truly necessary to motivate this work by > > requiring fast CFMs? > > It is right that frequent CCMs are not required if the layers below Ethernet handle protection. However, the ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs where Ethernet is not just a single hop above a transport LSP. In this case Ethernet layer (for clarity GELS) may provide protection for Ethernet LSPs. In any case, the whole point of the ID is to allow for the appropriate configuration of CFM for Ethernet LSPs with GMPLS. > > 3) This document does not cover E-LMI. Why not? > > E-LMI is run over the MEF UNI. The ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs within a network. > > For the purposes of this document, we only discuss Ethernet OAM > > [IEEE-CFM] aspects that are relevant for the connectivity monitoring > > of bidirectional point-to-point PBB-TE connections. > > 4) Is this the right place to define this document or should this be done in GELS? > > Well, GELS is done in CCAMP...this seems to be the right place. > > 5) In section 2 you make the following statement: > > 2. GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions > > To simplify the configuration of connectivity monitoring, when an > > Ethernet LSP is signalled the associated MEPs should be automatically > > established. Further more, GMPLS signalling should be able to > > enable/disable connectivity monitoring of a particular Ethernet LSP. > > To my point in #1 above, you should use the native CFM functionality over the ethernet interface and signal > > those capabilities to the bridges at both ends using the IEEE CFM signaling procedures (when and if they > > are created). If you want to test the underlying GMPLS LSP(s), then you should use some > > other mechanism defined for that layer such as the work stated in draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt > > See the note to your point #1. There is no relation to the gmpls-LSP-ping draft. > > The point I am making is that perhaps it should. > > --Tom > > > -- Loa Andersson Principal Networking Architect Acreo AB phone: +46 8 632 77 14 Isafjordsgatan 22 mobile: +46 739 81 21 64 Kista, Sweden email: loa.andersson@acreo.se loa@pi.se This email was Anti Virus checked by Astaro Security Gateway. http://www.astaro.com From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Wed Dec 05 16:02:14 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J01Nm-00079e-7E for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 16:02:14 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J01Nk-00076W-L0 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 16:02:14 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J01Af-0006qE-5U for ccamp-data@psg.com; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 20:48:41 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE, MIME_HTML_ONLY,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [129.60.39.106] (helo=tama555.ecl.ntt.co.jp) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J01AN-0006p7-Tj for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 20:48:35 +0000 Received: from nttmail23.ecl.ntt.co.jp (nttmail23.ecl.ntt.co.jp [129.60.39.107]) by tama555.ecl.ntt.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lB5KmJv2022987; Thu, 6 Dec 2007 05:48:19 +0900 (JST) Received: from dmailsv1.y.ecl.ntt.co.jp (dmailsv1.y.ecl.ntt.co.jp [129.60.53.14]) by nttmail23.ecl.ntt.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lB5KmIwX002282; Thu, 6 Dec 2007 05:48:18 +0900 (JST) Received: from mailsv04.y.ecl.ntt.co.jp by dmailsv1.y.ecl.ntt.co.jp (8.14.2/dmailsv1-2.0) with ESMTP id lB5KmI9a019140; Thu, 6 Dec 2007 05:48:18 +0900 (JST) Received: from localhost by mailsv04.y.ecl.ntt.co.jp (8.14.1/Lab-1.7) with ESMTP id lB5KmHcI028796; Thu, 6 Dec 2007 05:48:18 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <6.0.0.20.2.20071206053200.06f7d8b0@mailsv4.y.ecl.ntt.co.jp> X-Sender: wi002@mailsv4.y.ecl.ntt.co.jp X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6J-Jr3 Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 05:52:45 +0900 To: "Attila Takacs" From: Wataru Imajuku Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Cc: In-Reply-To: <53CCFDD6E346CB43994852666C210E910262460F@esealmw116.eemea. ericsson.se> References: <0428AC48A879ED46A94F39D5665DF684DF2F9A@esealmw110.eemea.ericsson.se> <002c01c83760$5edf74f0$42418182@dan> <53CCFDD6E346CB43994852666C210E910262460F@esealmw116.eemea.ericsson.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-2022-JP" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: 1.7 (+) X-Scan-Signature: de672dd48bf7248e70d446cd2da63266 Hi, Attila

 I understand this proposal automates manual configuration to set CFM interval in data plane.
 Control of CFM interval is new issue which GMPLS signaling mechanism has not covered.
 Although you outline Ethernet OAM functionality in section 2, I think it is better to describe what is difference and what is common in OAM functionality compared to circuit switched technologies
which GMPLS has been covered.

 On the other hand, I could not understand why do you need M bit in Admin Status Object.
 Why do not use A=1 ?
 Is the objective of M bit to stop sending CCM temporally ?

Best Regards
Wataru

At 04:37 07/12/06, Attila Takacs wrote:
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1 = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags">
Hi all,
 
Neil's and Dan's summary are exact. Thanks for your comments!
 
Maybe the title of the ID caused the misunderstanding, it would say more if it would read: "GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions to *Control* Ethernet OAM".
Nevertheless, when updating the ID we will clarify our point even more.
 
Best regards,
Attila

From: Dan Li [mailto:danli@huawei.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 6:01 PM
To: Diego Caviglia; neil.2.harrison@bt.com; Attila Takacs; tnadeau@lucidvision.com
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

Hi,
 
I think there is a misunderstanding with respect to the objective of this draft.
 
As I read this draft, it describes how to extend the RSVP protocol to support the configuration/enable the OAM function of Ethernet LSP, which I think is a good thing to do, it is not saying to use signaling protocol to do the OAM work. But anyway, it may be necessary to clarify the objective at the beginning of this draft.
 
Regards,
 
Dan
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Diego Caviglia
To: neil.2.harrison@bt.com ; Attila Takacs ; tnadeau@lucidvision.com
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 12:27 AM
Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

Hi Neil,

           Yes I totally agree with your analysis.

 

The is not going to redefine or reinvent the OAM that, as Thomas as pointed out, is done by IEEE, the ID just specify how to use a control plane mechanism (GMPLS) set-up at the same time data plane circuit and the related OAM.

 

Frankly specking I don$BCU(B see any layer violation here.

 

BR

 

Diego

 
From: neil.2.harrison@bt.com [mailto:neil.2.harrison@bt.com]
Sent: marted$Bw(B4 dicembre 2007 22.55
To: Attila Takacs; tnadeau@lucidvision.com; Diego Caviglia
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

 

I'm puzzled.  I read the draft and thought it was excellent.  It is addressing an important operational issue, ie a critical operational OAM requirement is to ensure that whatever mechanism (MP or CP) is used to set-up/tear-down a connection (so this only applies to co-cs or co-ps modes....the cl-ps mode does not have connections of course) is harmonised to the activation/deactivation of the OAM.....specifically a CV/CC flow.   If we don't ensure this then there will be obvious operational problems.  This is essentially what the draft is about.

 

Further, GMPLS is a generic OOB CP technique.....it is not a specific layer network technology per se (but it is specific in it's choice of signalling and routing components).  So one can apply a largely similar (GMPLS) CP technique to all co-cs mode technologies (whether they are partitioning a space, freq or time resource - see Note) and co-ps mode technologies (which only applies to partitioning a time resource - see Note) on the assumption that the technology is correctly architected in the DP for the mode considered.  It's pretty hard not to correctly architect the co-cs mode, but it's quite easy to incorrectly architect the co-ps mode, eg one can't violate the rules of a connection in the co-cs mode but one can in the co-ps mode.

 

Note - When we partition a time resource in regular time-slices we create a co-cs mode layer network.  When we partition a time resource in irregular time-slices we create a co-ps mode layer network.  More information on labelling and resource partitioning can be found in the work on unified modelling (of networks) in G.800.

 

regards, Neil

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Attila Takacs
Sent: 05 December 2007 02:03
To: Thomas Nadeau; Diego Caviglia
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

Hi Tom,

please see inline.

Best regards,

Attila

 
From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 2:19 AM
To: Diego Caviglia
Cc: Attila Takacs; ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com
Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

 

On Dec 4, 2007, at 7:33 PM, Diego Caviglia wrote:
Hi Thomas,

                 My understanding of the ID was that RSVP-TE can be used to $BAQ(Biggyback$BC(BCFM set-up, otherwise the scenario is: usage of RSVP-TE to set-up the LSP and NMS (meaning everything that is not control plane) to enable to CFM for the LSP.

 

As I understand it, the IEEE is working on set-up of CFM (and MEPs), as are some vendors I know. *)

This to me seems like the right way to do this.

 

IEEE specified CFM and MIBs to setup CFM.

Diego's summary is correct: one can use an NMS or a control plane to setup the data plane. In this case we propose to use GMPLS to setup the data plane: both forwarding + OAM.

From your comment I see that you$BCS(Be not happy with the fact the ID is so technology specific am I right? 

 

Precisely; its gluing CFM to RSVP-TE/GMPLS as a transport.

I do not see your point with gluing. What do you mean by "as transport"? GMPLS is just controlling OAM, CFM is run solely in the data plane.

 

 

If yes do you agree with the fact that could be useful in general to use the same signaling $BAT(Bession$BC(Bto set-up the LSP and to enable the CFM?

 

No, I do not agree.  Again, if CFM is to be set-up e2e, let the IEEE define this. Leave GMPLS to CCAMP.

 

 

Sorry, I cannot follow.

 

 

 

 

 

--Tom

 

 
 Best Regards


Diego
From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Nadeau
Sent: marted$Bw(B4 dicembre 2007 11.30
To: Attila Takacs
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com
Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

On Dec 4, 2007, at 1:51 PM, Attila Takacs wrote:
Hi Thomas,

Thank you for the comments!

Please see answers inline.

Best regards,
Attila
From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 2:58 PM
To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Cc: Attila Takacs; balazs.gero@ericsson.com
Subject: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

After reading this draft, I have some questions/comments.

1) Overall, I am concerned that the definition of a new TLV and these procedures represent

what amounts to a laying violation and ask that the ADs take a look at this

approach closely. This is similar to the now-rejected approach that was proposed

in the l2vpn WG about munging CFM + PWs.  To my reading, this is essentially

the same thing. If you want to run CFM, run it natively over the ethernet interfaces and

have no regard for the underlying topology (GMPLS, PWs, etc...) otherwise you

will be creating a mess for implementations and interoperability.

The application of the draft is exactly for what you are calling out: when CFM is run natively over the Ethernet interfaces. The document focuses on GELS and Ethernet LSPs. That is, to establish CFM entities for GMPLS controlled Ethernet LSPs. Hence, I think there is no layer violation issue.

         This solution specifically only works for GMPLS ethernet LSPs, right? 

What do I do if I want to set up MPLS ethernet LSPs (i.e.: PWs) and do CFM over those? Oh,

that is a different solution, right?  Then what do I do if I want to run CFM over some new type of

ethernet LSP in the future? More protocol hacks?  The point is to use CFM over an ethernet interface

without the underlying layers knowing. This is good networking architecture design, that simplifies

implementations and makes them more robust, as well as makes using them operationally much

easier.

2) The introductory sections in this draft give a lot of discussion about fast fault detection. I

am puzzled by this given that GMPLS networks tend to run over quickly self-healing

optical infrastructures. Is it therefore truly necessary to motivate this work by

requiring fast CFMs?

It is right that frequent CCMs are not required if the layers below Ethernet handle protection. However, the ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs where Ethernet is not just a single hop above a transport LSP. In this case Ethernet layer (for clarity GELS) may provide protection for Ethernet LSPs. In any case,  the whole point of the ID is to allow for the appropriate configuration of CFM for Ethernet LSPs with GMPLS.

3) This document does not cover E-LMI. Why not?

E-LMI is run over the MEF UNI. The ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs within a network.

For the purposes of this document, we only discuss Ethernet OAM

   [IEEE-CFM] aspects that are relevant for the connectivity monitoring

   of bidirectional point-to-point PBB-TE connections. 

4) Is this the right place to define this document or should this be done in GELS?

Well, GELS is done in CCAMP...this seems to be the right place.

5)   In section 2 you make the following statement:

2.  GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions

    To simplify the configuration of connectivity monitoring, when an

   Ethernet LSP is signalled the associated MEPs should be automatically

    established.  Further more, GMPLS signalling should be able to

  enable/disable connectivity monitoring of a particular Ethernet LSP.

To my point in #1 above, you should use the native CFM functionality over the ethernet interface and signal

those capabilities to the bridges at both ends using the IEEE CFM signaling procedures (when and if they

are created).  If you want to test the underlying GMPLS LSP(s), then you should use some

other mechanism defined for that layer such as the work stated in draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt

See the note to your point #1. There is no relation to the gmpls-LSP-ping draft.

         The point I am making is that perhaps it should.

         --Tom

 

-------------------------------------
Wataru Imajuku, Ph.D.@NTT Network Innovation Labs
TEL: +81-46-859-4315
FAX: +81-46-859-5541
From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Wed Dec 05 16:46:21 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J024T-0007dP-Rr for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 16:46:21 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J024T-0003ET-Gq for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 16:46:21 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J01nU-000Aof-Qv for ccamp-data@psg.com; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 21:28:48 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE, STOX_REPLY_TYPE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [62.128.201.248] (helo=asmtp1.iomartmail.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J01nI-000AnD-1G for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 21:28:43 +0000 Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.8) with ESMTP id lB5LSIGd014909; Wed, 5 Dec 2007 21:28:19 GMT Received: from your029b8cecfe (dhcp-14bd.ietf70.org [130.129.20.189]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lB5LSE0d014883; Wed, 5 Dec 2007 21:28:17 GMT Message-ID: <01fe01c83785$bf17df90$bd148182@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "Attila Takacs" , "Wataru Imajuku" Cc: References: <0428AC48A879ED46A94F39D5665DF684DF2F9A@esealmw110.eemea.ericsson.se> <002c01c83760$5edf74f0$42418182@dan> <53CCFDD6E346CB43994852666C210E910262460F@esealmw116.eemea.ericsson.se> <6.0.0.20.2.20071206053200.06f7d8b0@mailsv4.y.ecl.ntt.co.jp> Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 21:28:09 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-2022-jp"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 0bc60ec82efc80c84b8d02f4b0e4de22 Hi Wataru, > On the other hand, I could not understand why do you need M bit in Admin > Status Object. > Why do not use A=1 ? > Is the objective of M bit to stop sending CCM temporally ? The A bit is already defined as: When set, indicates that the local actions related to the "administratively down" state should be taken. The I bit is additionally defined as: When set, indicates that alarm communication is disabled for the LSP and that nodes SHOULD NOT add local alarm information. Neither of these is the same as the proposed M bit When this bit is set the connectivity monitoring of the LSP is disabled. So, yes, the proposal is that the M bit adds new function to turn off OAM processing on an LSP reqgardless of the administrative status of the LSP. Whether that is a useful function is up for discussion. Adrian From MyroncasseroleWebster@investmentmap.com Wed Dec 05 16:55:01 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J02Cr-0004UQ-Kq for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 16:55:01 -0500 Received: from pc-114-18-46-190.cm.vtr.net ([190.46.18.114] helo=desktop) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J02Cr-000492-8n for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 16:55:01 -0500 Received: from flexure by investmentmap.com with SMTP id 9wtYIAPMpA for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2007 18:54:03 -0100 From: "Myron Hammond" To: Subject: We're serious about fun. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 2.1 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 7bac9cb154eb5790ae3b2913587a40de Play your favorite games and get $999 welcome bonus. Get $999 you download our casino. Play your favorite games and get $999 welcome bonus. We have it all! http://eurocasinoam.com/ From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Wed Dec 05 17:23:20 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J02eG-0001US-Gu for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 17:23:20 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J02eF-00072W-3H for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 17:23:20 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J02UA-000GfX-NF for ccamp-data@psg.com; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 22:12:54 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [72.71.250.34] (helo=lucidvision.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J02Te-000Gb1-M4 for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 22:12:38 +0000 Received: from [192.168.1.120] (static-72-71-250-36.cncdnh.fios.verizon.net [72.71.250.36]) by lucidvision.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3310E5CFB4; Wed, 5 Dec 2007 17:12:33 -0500 (EST) Cc: Dan Li , Diego Caviglia , neil.2.harrison@bt.com, Attila Takacs , ccamp@ops.ietf.org Message-Id: <74C2EEA4-898C-43A0-AB54-CAD9C53E59BE@lucidvision.com> From: Thomas Nadeau To: Loa Andersson In-Reply-To: <47570BE6.1020007@pi.se> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 17:12:20 -0500 References: <0428AC48A879ED46A94F39D5665DF684DF2F9A@esealmw110.eemea.ericsson.se> <002c01c83760$5edf74f0$42418182@dan> <47570BE6.1020007@pi.se> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915) Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 054490fec19f6a94c68e63428d06db69 What do we do for the other signaling protocols outside of = CCAMP? Do we now extend BGP, RSVP-TE (for MPLS), and LDP to control OAM there as well? --Tom =09 > All, > > I'm normally a bit careful with models "layer networks" that seems > to be a rather cumbersome way of explaining the obvious; however > in this case when it is used demonstrate that no layer violation > is at hand I is inclined to accept that result. > > I also agree with Dan that it seems to be a good idea to use > RSVP-TE to provision OAM functionality is a good idea. > > With that it we should just go ahead and accept this as a > ccamp work item. > > /Loa > > Dan Li wrote: >> MessageHi, >> >> I think there is a misunderstanding with respect to the objective =20 >> of this draft. >> >> As I read this draft, it describes how to extend the RSVP protocol > > to support the configuration/enable the OAM function of Ethernet LSP, > > which I think is a good thing to do, it is not saying to use signaling > > protocol to do the OAM work. But anyway, it may be necessary to =20 > clarify > > the objective at the beginning of this draft. >> >> Regards, >> >> Dan >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Diego Caviglia >> To: neil.2.harrison@bt.com ; Attila Takacs ; tnadeau@lucidvision.com >> Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org >> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 12:27 AM >> Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt >> >> >> Hi Neil, >> >> Yes I totally agree with your analysis. >> >> >> >> The is not going to redefine or reinvent the OAM that, as Thomas =20 >> as pointed out, is done by IEEE, the ID just specify how to use a =20 >> control plane mechanism (GMPLS) set-up at the same time data plane =20= >> circuit and the related OAM. >> >> >> >> Frankly specking I don't see any layer violation here. >> >> >> >> BR >> >> >> >> Diego >> >> >> >> >> = --------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---- >> >> From: neil.2.harrison@bt.com [mailto:neil.2.harrison@bt.com] >> Sent: marted=EC 4 dicembre 2007 22.55 >> To: Attila Takacs; tnadeau@lucidvision.com; Diego Caviglia >> Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org >> Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt >> >> >> >> I'm puzzled. I read the draft and thought it was excellent. It =20 >> is addressing an important operational issue, ie a critical =20 >> operational OAM requirement is to ensure that whatever mechanism =20 >> (MP or CP) is used to set-up/tear-down a connection (so this only =20 >> applies to co-cs or co-ps modes....the cl-ps mode does not have =20 >> connections of course) is harmonised to the activation/deactivation =20= >> of the OAM.....specifically a CV/CC flow. If we don't ensure this =20= >> then there will be obvious operational problems. This is =20 >> essentially what the draft is about. >> >> >> >> Further, GMPLS is a generic OOB CP technique.....it is not a =20 >> specific layer network technology per se (but it is specific in =20 >> it's choice of signalling and routing components). So one can =20 >> apply a largely similar (GMPLS) CP technique to all co-cs mode =20 >> technologies (whether they are partitioning a space, freq or time =20 >> resource - see Note) and co-ps mode technologies (which only =20 >> applies to partitioning a time resource - see Note) on the =20 >> assumption that the technology is correctly architected in the DP =20 >> for the mode considered. It's pretty hard not to correctly =20 >> architect the co-cs mode, but it's quite easy to incorrectly =20 >> architect the co-ps mode, eg one can't violate the rules of a =20 >> connection in the co-cs mode but one can in the co-ps mode. >> >> >> >> Note - When we partition a time resource in regular time-slices we =20= >> create a co-cs mode layer network. When we partition a time =20 >> resource in irregular time-slices we create a co-ps mode layer =20 >> network. More information on labelling and resource partitioning =20 >> can be found in the work on unified modelling (of networks) in G.800. >> >> >> >> regards, Neil >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] =20= >> On Behalf Of Attila Takacs >> Sent: 05 December 2007 02:03 >> To: Thomas Nadeau; Diego Caviglia >> Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org >> Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt >> >> Hi Tom, >> >> please see inline. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Attila >> >> >> >> >> = --------------------------------------------------------------------------= >> >> From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 2:19 AM >> To: Diego Caviglia >> Cc: Attila Takacs; ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com >> Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt >> >> >> >> On Dec 4, 2007, at 7:33 PM, Diego Caviglia wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi Thomas, >> >> My understanding of the ID was that RSVP-TE =20 >> can be used to 'piggyback' CFM set-up, otherwise the scenario is: =20 >> usage of RSVP-TE to set-up the LSP and NMS (meaning everything that =20= >> is not control plane) to enable to CFM for the LSP. >> >> >> >> As I understand it, the IEEE is working on set-up of CFM (and =20= >> MEPs), as are some vendors I know. *) >> >> This to me seems like the right way to do this. >> >> >> >> IEEE specified CFM and MIBs to setup CFM. >> >> Diego's summary is correct: one can use an NMS or a control =20 >> plane to setup the data plane. In this case we propose to use GMPLS =20= >> to setup the data plane: both forwarding + OAM. >> >> =46rom your comment I see that you're not happy with the fact =20= >> the ID is so technology specific am I right? >> >> >> >> Precisely; its gluing CFM to RSVP-TE/GMPLS as a transport. >> >> I do not see your point with gluing. What do you mean by "as =20 >> transport"? GMPLS is just controlling OAM, CFM is run solely in the =20= >> data plane. >> >> >> >> >> >> If yes do you agree with the fact that could be useful in =20 >> general to use the same signaling 'session' to set-up the LSP and =20 >> to enable the CFM? >> >> >> >> No, I do not agree. Again, if CFM is to be set-up e2e, let =20 >> the IEEE define this. Leave GMPLS to CCAMP. >> >> >> >> >> >> Sorry, I cannot follow. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> --Tom >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Best Regards >> >> >> Diego >> >> >> = --------------------------------------------------------------------------= >> >> From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-=20 >> ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Nadeau >> Sent: marted=EC 4 dicembre 2007 11.30 >> To: Attila Takacs >> Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com >> Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt >> >> On Dec 4, 2007, at 1:51 PM, Attila Takacs wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi Thomas, >> >> Thank you for the comments! >> >> Please see answers inline. >> >> Best regards, >> Attila >> >> >> = ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 2:58 PM >> To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org >> Cc: Attila Takacs; balazs.gero@ericsson.com >> Subject: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt >> >> After reading this draft, I have some questions/comments. >> >> 1) Overall, I am concerned that the definition of a new TLV =20= >> and these procedures represent >> >> what amounts to a laying violation and ask that the ADs take =20= >> a look at this >> >> approach closely. This is similar to the now-rejected =20 >> approach that was proposed >> >> in the l2vpn WG about munging CFM + PWs. To my reading, =20 >> this is essentially >> >> the same thing. If you want to run CFM, run it natively over =20= >> the ethernet interfaces and >> >> have no regard for the underlying topology (GMPLS, PWs, =20 >> etc...) otherwise you >> >> will be creating a mess for implementations and =20 >> interoperability. >> >> The application of the draft is exactly for what you are =20 >> calling out: when CFM is run natively over the Ethernet interfaces. =20= >> The document focuses on GELS and Ethernet LSPs. That is, to =20 >> establish CFM entities for GMPLS controlled Ethernet LSPs. Hence, I =20= >> think there is no layer violation issue. >> >> This solution specifically only works for GMPLS =20 >> ethernet LSPs, right? >> >> What do I do if I want to set up MPLS ethernet LSPs (i.e.: =20 >> PWs) and do CFM over those? Oh, >> >> that is a different solution, right? Then what do I do if I =20 >> want to run CFM over some new type of >> >> ethernet LSP in the future? More protocol hacks? The point is =20= >> to use CFM over an ethernet interface >> >> without the underlying layers knowing. This is good networking =20= >> architecture design, that simplifies >> >> implementations and makes them more robust, as well as makes =20 >> using them operationally much >> >> easier. >> >> 2) The introductory sections in this draft give a lot of =20 >> discussion about fast fault detection. I >> >> am puzzled by this given that GMPLS networks tend to run =20 >> over quickly self-healing >> >> optical infrastructures. Is it therefore truly necessary =20 >> to motivate this work by >> >> requiring fast CFMs? >> >> It is right that frequent CCMs are not required if the =20 >> layers below Ethernet handle protection. However, the ID focuses on =20= >> Ethernet LSPs where Ethernet is not just a single hop above a =20 >> transport LSP. In this case Ethernet layer (for clarity GELS) may =20 >> provide protection for Ethernet LSPs. In any case, the whole point =20= >> of the ID is to allow for the appropriate configuration of CFM for =20= >> Ethernet LSPs with GMPLS. >> >> 3) This document does not cover E-LMI. Why not? >> >> E-LMI is run over the MEF UNI. The ID focuses on Ethernet =20 >> LSPs within a network. >> >> For the purposes of this document, we only discuss =20 >> Ethernet OAM >> >> [IEEE-CFM] aspects that are relevant for the =20 >> connectivity monitoring >> >> of bidirectional point-to-point PBB-TE connections. >> >> 4) Is this the right place to define this document or =20 >> should this be done in GELS? >> >> Well, GELS is done in CCAMP...this seems to be the right =20 >> place. >> >> 5) In section 2 you make the following statement: >> >> 2. GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions >> >> To simplify the configuration of connectivity =20 >> monitoring, when an >> >> Ethernet LSP is signalled the associated MEPs should be =20= >> automatically >> >> established. Further more, GMPLS signalling should be =20= >> able to >> >> enable/disable connectivity monitoring of a particular =20 >> Ethernet LSP. >> >> To my point in #1 above, you should use the native CFM =20 >> functionality over the ethernet interface and signal >> >> those capabilities to the bridges at both ends using the =20 >> IEEE CFM signaling procedures (when and if they >> >> are created). If you want to test the underlying GMPLS =20 >> LSP(s), then you should use some >> >> other mechanism defined for that layer such as the work =20 >> stated in draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt >> >> See the note to your point #1. There is no relation to the =20 >> gmpls-LSP-ping draft. >> >> The point I am making is that perhaps it should. >> >> --Tom >> >> >> > > > --=20 > Loa Andersson > > Principal Networking Architect > Acreo AB phone: +46 8 632 77 14 > Isafjordsgatan 22 mobile: +46 739 81 21 64 > Kista, Sweden email: loa.andersson@acreo.se > loa@pi.se > > This email was Anti Virus checked by Astaro Security Gateway. = http://www.astaro.com > > From SaulimmunoelectrophoresisLamb@lohud.com Wed Dec 05 17:33:59 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J02oY-0007bM-Pq for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 17:33:59 -0500 Received: from [200.106.117.247] (helo=maquina4) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J02oY-0008T0-7i for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 17:33:58 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host93098065.lohud.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id DEWXufxd28.638642.YFl.YWa.7441680699439 for ; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 17:32:46 +0500 Message-ID: <56e5801c844ea$9fcb3570$d201a8c0@MAQUINA4> From: "Terrell Tran" To: Subject: Confirmation link Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 17:32:46 +0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_56E54_01C844EA.9FCB3570" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 3971661e40967acfc35f708dd5f33760 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_56E54_01C844EA.9FCB3570 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Even if you have no erection problems Cialis Soft Tabs would help you to = make better sex more often and to bring unimaginable plesure to her. = Just disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for action in = 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking this = medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours! Package Quantity Price in your local drugstore* Our price LearnMoreNow 10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49 30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50 60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02 90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40 180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46 When you are young and stressed up… When you are aged and never give up… Cialis Soft Tabs gives you confidence in any chance, every time. ------=_NextPart_000_56E54_01C844EA.9FCB3570 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Cialis Soft=20 Tabs would help you to make better sex more often and to bring=20 unimaginable plesure to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue = and get=20 ready for action in 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of = men after=20 taking this medication were able to have perfect erection during = 24=20 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Cialis Soft Tabs gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_56E54_01C844EA.9FCB3570-- From RoycepetersonKirby@aaaknow.com Wed Dec 05 18:11:06 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J03OU-0002jS-Uc for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 18:11:06 -0500 Received: from pool-72-71-233-7.cncdnh.east.verizon.net ([72.71.233.7] helo=your4dacd0ea75.myhome.westell.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J03OU-0003uc-EL for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 18:11:06 -0500 Received: from chattel by aaaknow.com with SMTP id x8je610ORO for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2007 18:10:43 +0500 From: "Eldon Monroe" To: Subject: After thatit's only fun and winning. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 3.2 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 7bac9cb154eb5790ae3b2913587a40de After thatit's only fun and winning. When YOU WIN, we win! Free money free fun. We give out BONUSES to anyone who joins. http://eurocasinoam.com/ From AlimortarSalinas@lifeduringwartime.net Wed Dec 05 18:51:10 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J041F-0008T4-UY for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 18:51:09 -0500 Received: from [201.228.183.80] (helo=tatia2272fcf50) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J041F-00089A-4c for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 18:51:09 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host10972173.lifeduringwartime.net (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id 6ZdNlvLj34.254410.bPI.Ee0.9101359233153 for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2007 18:50:44 +0500 Message-ID: From: "Raphael Blackwell" To: , =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Cialis Soft=20 Tabs would help you to make better sex more often and to bring=20 unimaginable plesure to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue = and get=20 ready for action in 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of = men after=20 taking this medication were able to have perfect erection during = 24=20 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Cialis Soft Tabs gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_E7E2_01C83799.AF47EE70-- From tcollapse@crai.com Wed Dec 05 19:34:10 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J04gs-0006Nx-Iy for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 19:34:10 -0500 Received: from [117.6.116.252] (helo=crai.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J04gq-0003Ut-BS for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 19:34:10 -0500 Received: from NOVA ([64.113.21.87]:6486 "HELO NOVA" smtp-auth: TLS-CIPHER: TLS-PEER-CN1: ) by fc740675crai.com with ESMTP id j3EJDHZV624600 (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Dec 2007 07:34:04 +0700 Message-ID: <001001c837da$60a148c0$0019d9cc@NOVA> From: Lemuel Donnelly To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org Subject: it front Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 07:34:04 +0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000D_01C837DA.60A148C0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.4682 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Spam-Score: 2.4 (++) X-Scan-Signature: a7d6aff76b15f3f56fcb94490e1052e4 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C837DA.60A148C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Modernist attitude has had mainstream society pinning away for out, the software that is available right now is of almost no attention. S= imulators already exist. Because of all this hype, ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C837DA.60A148C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

computer will be a much more sophisticated display system. The

Are you wanting a bi ,gger pen ,is?

As seen on TV

Over 765,000 Men around the world are already satis ,fied
G ,ain 3+ Inches In Le,ngth
Inc ,rease Your Pen, is Wid ,th (Gi ,rth) By u,p-to 24%
100% Sa,fe To Take, With NO S:ide Effects
No P, umps! No Surgery! No Exercises!

nbccx. com /* O, mit Empty Space

with from taking this course is the feeling of entry into the
------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C837DA.60A148C0-- From cjlook@eapdd.com Wed Dec 05 19:39:56 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J04mS-0008BM-Nz for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 19:39:56 -0500 Received: from [189.70.199.104] (helo=18970199104.user.veloxzone.com.br) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J04m0-0003xS-OT for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 19:39:56 -0500 Received: from ricardo ([129.163.157.211]:37113 "HELO ricardo" smtp-auth: TLS-CIPHER: TLS-PEER-CN1: ) by 68c746bdeapdd.com with ESMTP id 8357C75851B432 (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Dec 2007 22:39:21 -0200 Message-ID: <001101c8378f$adfc4020$06642774@ricardo> From: Joaquin To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org Subject: A on donor Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 22:39:21 -0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000E_01C8378F.ADFC4020" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2969 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3000 X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9ed51c9d1356100bce94f1ae4ec616a9 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C8378F.ADFC4020 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1250" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable in post-war France. A few months ago I had dinner with a good strategy that elaborates and gives the user choices and the surgery. Combin= ed, the use of these two areas in conjunction with ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C8378F.ADFC4020 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1250" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

of novelty or maybe on a special occasion. What about wedding
=

Are you wanting a bi ,gger pen ,is?

As seen on TV

Over 753,000 Men around the world are already satis ,fied
G ,ain 2+ Inches In Le,ngth
Inc ,rease Your Pen, is Wid ,th (Gi ,rth) By u,p-to 27%
100% Sa,fe To Take, With NO S:ide Effects
No P, umps! No Surgery! No Exercises!

ommomm. com /* O, mit Empty Space

culture may find new roles in visual communication. Whenever we
= ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C8378F.ADFC4020-- From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Wed Dec 05 21:40:49 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J06fR-0007Dq-Rc for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 21:40:49 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J06fR-0005eb-Gi for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 21:40:49 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J06UG-000HUY-PE for ccamp-data@psg.com; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 02:29:16 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [80.86.78.228] (helo=fw.testbed.se) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J06Th-000HRw-3m for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 02:28:56 +0000 Received: from MailerDaemon by fw.testbed.se with local-bsmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1J06Td-0005fJ-7P for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 03:28:37 +0100 Received: from [130.129.86.87] (port=1590) by fw.testbed.se with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1J06Tb-0005eu-IM for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 03:28:35 +0100 Message-ID: <47575E4A.1040500@pi.se> Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 03:28:26 +0100 From: Loa Andersson Organization: Acreo AB User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ccamp Subject: what happened alternatively what will happen X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A0B0202.47575DB4.0111,ss=1,fgs=0 X-cff-SpamScore: 0(/) X-cff-SpamReport: ----- ----- Message is unknown to the spam scanner. X-cff-LastScanner: footer Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0bc60ec82efc80c84b8d02f4b0e4de22 Adrian and Deborah, yesterday a set of IDs on GMPLS control of Ethernet were presented; given that I remember correctly the author of the requirement draft said they think that the draft will be ready to become a working group document after next IETF meeting. The authors of the architecture draft for GMPLS controlled Ethernet and the protocol extensions for control of PBT-TE networks requested that their draft should be accepted as working group documents. No sense of the room were taken or "take it to the list" statement. What's the plan? /Loa -- Loa Andersson Principal Networking Architect Acreo AB phone: +46 8 632 77 14 Isafjordsgatan 22 mobile: +46 739 81 21 64 Kista, Sweden email: loa.andersson@acreo.se loa@pi.se This email was Anti Virus checked by Astaro Security Gateway. http://www.astaro.com From Moonfmymq@allonas.de Wed Dec 05 22:15:03 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J07CZ-0007UC-R9 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 22:15:03 -0500 Received: from [151.66.138.27] (helo=[151.66.139.18]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J07CZ-0008Mw-5L for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 22:15:03 -0500 Received: by 10.32.147.33 with SMTP id aBAHOhEgAtyyF; Thu, 6 Dec 2007 04:15:13 +0100 (GMT) Received: by 192.168.222.176 with SMTP id BGUmzjaCmQErTA.2739956388743; Thu, 6 Dec 2007 04:15:11 +0100 (GMT) Message-ID: <000801c837b6$34c991e0$128b4297@milena> From: "specner Moon" To: Subject: romotors Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 04:15:08 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0005_01C837BE.968F8080" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Spam-Score: 2.1 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464 ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C837BE.968F8080 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Evening ccamp-archive problems caused by ya tiny PE? http://desertcentury.com specner Moon ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C837BE.968F8080 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Evening ccamp-archive
problems caused by ya tiny PE?
http://desertcentury.com
specner Moon
------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C837BE.968F8080-- From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Wed Dec 05 22:18:44 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J07G8-00010o-9y for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 22:18:44 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J07G4-00032g-EA for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 22:18:44 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J075e-000LHm-7z for ccamp-data@psg.com; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 03:07:54 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE, RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [193.180.251.60] (helo=mailgw3.ericsson.se) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J075Q-000LGr-Kk for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 03:07:47 +0000 Received: from mailgw3.ericsson.se (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mailgw3.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id D2D1C213EC; Thu, 6 Dec 2007 04:07:38 +0100 (CET) X-AuditID: c1b4fb3c-af796bb0000030cf-d3-4757677ac79c Received: from esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.254.123]) by mailgw3.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id AFE6921288; Thu, 6 Dec 2007 04:07:38 +0100 (CET) Received: from esealmw116.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.200.7]) by esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 6 Dec 2007 04:07:38 +0100 x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C837B5.27F0AC40" Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 04:07:37 +0100 Message-ID: <53CCFDD6E346CB43994852666C210E9102624612@esealmw116.eemea.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.20.2.20071206053200.06f7d8b0@mailsv4.y.ecl.ntt.co.jp> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Thread-Index: Acg3gDEwHgzwuP1RQpW2V7jAqvE8ogAKqyMg References: <0428AC48A879ED46A94F39D5665DF684DF2F9A@esealmw110.eemea.ericsson.se> <002c01c83760$5edf74f0$42418182@dan> <53CCFDD6E346CB43994852666C210E910262460F@esealmw116.eemea.ericsson.se> <6.0.0.20.2.20071206053200.06f7d8b0@mailsv4.y.ecl.ntt.co.jp> From: "Attila Takacs" To: "Wataru Imajuku" Cc: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Dec 2007 03:07:38.0477 (UTC) FILETIME=[284C81D0:01C837B5] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 9d54f0d83a3613448292c2f9f09a7e10 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C837B5.27F0AC40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-2022-JP" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Wataru, Just adding to Adrian's points... I think it is useful to separate A and M bits. When the LSP is put in administratively down, e.g., to avoid it is carrying traffic for any reason, it would be still useful to run data plane OAM so one knows the data plane is in tact when the LSP is put back operational. That is, A=1, M=0. On the other hand, e.g., in the case of planed maintenance, one might want to turn data plane OAM off as well, having A=1, M=1. Regarding the I bit, I think even if GMPLS alarm communication is disabled, the actual monitoring of data plane connectivity is needed, again to have the up to date status of the data plane. In summary, I think having a separate M bit is useful, and accounts for flexibility. Best regards, Attila ________________________________ From: Wataru Imajuku [mailto:imajuku.wataru@lab.ntt.co.jp] Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 9:53 PM To: Attila Takacs Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Hi, Attila I understand this proposal automates manual configuration to set CFM interval in data plane. Control of CFM interval is new issue which GMPLS signaling mechanism has not covered. Although you outline Ethernet OAM functionality in section 2, I think it is better to describe what is difference and what is common in OAM functionality compared to circuit switched technologies which GMPLS has been covered. On the other hand, I could not understand why do you need M bit in Admin Status Object. Why do not use A=1 ? Is the objective of M bit to stop sending CCM temporally ? Best Regards Wataru At 04:37 07/12/06, Attila Takacs wrote: "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1 = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"> Hi all, Neil's and Dan's summary are exact. Thanks for your comments! Maybe the title of the ID caused the misunderstanding, it would say more if it would read: "GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions to *Control* Ethernet OAM". Nevertheless, when updating the ID we will clarify our point even more. Best regards, Attila ________________________________ From: Dan Li [mailto:danli@huawei.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 6:01 PM To: Diego Caviglia; neil.2.harrison@bt.com; Attila Takacs; tnadeau@lucidvision.com Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Hi, I think there is a misunderstanding with respect to the objective of this draft. As I read this draft, it describes how to extend the RSVP protocol to support the configuration/enable the OAM function of Ethernet LSP, which I think is a good thing to do, it is not saying to use signaling protocol to do the OAM work. But anyway, it may be necessary to clarify the objective at the beginning of this draft. Regards, Dan ----- Original Message ----- From: Diego Caviglia To: neil.2.harrison@bt.com ; Attila Takacs ; tnadeau@lucidvision.com Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 12:27 AM Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Hi Neil, Yes I totally agree with your analysis. The is not going to redefine or reinvent the OAM that, as Thomas as pointed out, is done by IEEE, the ID just specify how to use a control plane mechanism (GMPLS) set-up at the same time data plane circuit and the related OAM. Frankly specking I don$BCU(J see any layer violation here. BR Diego ________________________________ From: neil.2.harrison@bt.com [mailto:neil.2.harrison@bt.com] Sent: marted$B!&(J4 dicembre 2007 22.55 To: Attila Takacs; tnadeau@lucidvision.com; Diego Caviglia Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt I'm puzzled. I read the draft and thought it was excellent. It is addressing an important operational issue, ie a critical operational OAM requirement is to ensure that whatever mechanism (MP or CP) is used to set-up/tear-down a connection (so this only applies to co-cs or co-ps modes....the cl-ps mode does not have connections of course) is harmonised to the activation/deactivation of the OAM.....specifically a CV/CC flow. If we don't ensure this then there will be obvious operational problems. This is essentially what the draft is about. Further, GMPLS is a generic OOB CP technique.....it is not a specific layer network technology per se (but it is specific in it's choice of signalling and routing components). So one can apply a largely similar (GMPLS) CP technique to all co-cs mode technologies (whether they are partitioning a space, freq or time resource - see Note) and co-ps mode technologies (which only applies to partitioning a time resource - see Note) on the assumption that the technology is correctly architected in the DP for the mode considered. It's pretty hard not to correctly architect the co-cs mode, but it's quite easy to incorrectly architect the co-ps mode, eg one can't violate the rules of a connection in the co-cs mode but one can in the co-ps mode. Note - When we partition a time resource in regular time-slices we create a co-cs mode layer network. When we partition a time resource in irregular time-slices we create a co-ps mode layer network. More information on labelling and resource partitioning can be found in the work on unified modelling (of networks) in G.800. regards, Neil -----Original Message----- From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Attila Takacs Sent: 05 December 2007 02:03 To: Thomas Nadeau; Diego Caviglia Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Hi Tom, please see inline. Best regards, Attila ________________________________ From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 2:19 AM To: Diego Caviglia Cc: Attila Takacs; ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt On Dec 4, 2007, at 7:33 PM, Diego Caviglia wrote: Hi Thomas, My understanding of the ID was that RSVP-TE can be used to $BAQ(Jiggyback$B!)(JCFM set-up, otherwise the scenario is: usage of RSVP-TE to set-up the LSP and NMS (meaning everything that is not control plane) to enable to CFM for the LSP. As I understand it, the IEEE is working on set-up of CFM (and MEPs), as are some vendors I know. *) This to me seems like the right way to do this. IEEE specified CFM and MIBs to setup CFM. Diego's summary is correct: one can use an NMS or a control plane to setup the data plane. In this case we propose to use GMPLS to setup the data plane: both forwarding + OAM. From your comment I see that you$BCS(Je not happy with the fact the ID is so technology specific am I right? Precisely; its gluing CFM to RSVP-TE/GMPLS as a transport. I do not see your point with gluing. What do you mean by "as transport"? GMPLS is just controlling OAM, CFM is run solely in the data plane. If yes do you agree with the fact that could be useful in general to use the same signaling $BAT(Jession$B!)(Jto set-up the LSP and to enable the CFM? No, I do not agree. Again, if CFM is to be set-up e2e, let the IEEE define this. Leave GMPLS to CCAMP. Sorry, I cannot follow. --Tom Best Regards Diego ________________________________ From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Nadeau Sent: marted$B!&(J4 dicembre 2007 11.30 To: Attila Takacs Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt On Dec 4, 2007, at 1:51 PM, Attila Takacs wrote: Hi Thomas, Thank you for the comments! Please see answers inline. Best regards, Attila ________________________________ From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 2:58 PM To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Cc: Attila Takacs; balazs.gero@ericsson.com Subject: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt After reading this draft, I have some questions/comments. 1) Overall, I am concerned that the definition of a new TLV and these procedures represent what amounts to a laying violation and ask that the ADs take a look at this approach closely. This is similar to the now-rejected approach that was proposed in the l2vpn WG about munging CFM + PWs. To my reading, this is essentially the same thing. If you want to run CFM, run it natively over the ethernet interfaces and have no regard for the underlying topology (GMPLS, PWs, etc...) otherwise you will be creating a mess for implementations and interoperability. The application of the draft is exactly for what you are calling out: when CFM is run natively over the Ethernet interfaces. The document focuses on GELS and Ethernet LSPs. That is, to establish CFM entities for GMPLS controlled Ethernet LSPs. Hence, I think there is no layer violation issue. This solution specifically only works for GMPLS ethernet LSPs, right? What do I do if I want to set up MPLS ethernet LSPs (i.e.: PWs) and do CFM over those? Oh, that is a different solution, right? Then what do I do if I want to run CFM over some new type of ethernet LSP in the future? More protocol hacks? The point is to use CFM over an ethernet interface without the underlying layers knowing. This is good networking architecture design, that simplifies implementations and makes them more robust, as well as makes using them operationally much easier. 2) The introductory sections in this draft give a lot of discussion about fast fault detection. I am puzzled by this given that GMPLS networks tend to run over quickly self-healing optical infrastructures. Is it therefore truly necessary to motivate this work by requiring fast CFMs? It is right that frequent CCMs are not required if the layers below Ethernet handle protection. However, the ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs where Ethernet is not just a single hop above a transport LSP. In this case Ethernet layer (for clarity GELS) may provide protection for Ethernet LSPs. In any case, the whole point of the ID is to allow for the appropriate configuration of CFM for Ethernet LSPs with GMPLS. 3) This document does not cover E-LMI. Why not? E-LMI is run over the MEF UNI. The ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs within a network. For the purposes of this document, we only discuss Ethernet OAM [IEEE-CFM] aspects that are relevant for the connectivity monitoring of bidirectional point-to-point PBB-TE connections. 4) Is this the right place to define this document or should this be done in GELS? Well, GELS is done in CCAMP...this seems to be the right place. 5) In section 2 you make the following statement: 2. GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions To simplify the configuration of connectivity monitoring, when an Ethernet LSP is signalled the associated MEPs should be automatically established. Further more, GMPLS signalling should be able to enable/disable connectivity monitoring of a particular Ethernet LSP. To my point in #1 above, you should use the native CFM functionality over the ethernet interface and signal those capabilities to the bridges at both ends using the IEEE CFM signaling procedures (when and if they are created). If you want to test the underlying GMPLS LSP(s), then you should use some other mechanism defined for that layer such as the work stated in draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt See the note to your point #1. There is no relation to the gmpls-LSP-ping draft. The point I am making is that perhaps it should. --Tom ------------------------------------- Wataru Imajuku, Ph.D.@NTT Network Innovation Labs TEL: +81-46-859-4315 FAX: +81-46-859-5541 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C837B5.27F0AC40 Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-2022-JP" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hi Wataru,
 
Just adding to Adrian's points...
 
I think it is useful to separate A and M bits. When the LSP is put in administratively down, e.g.,  to avoid it is carrying traffic for any reason, it would be still useful to run data plane OAM so one knows the data plane is in tact when the LSP is put back operational. That is,  A=1, M=0. On the other hand, e.g., in the case of planed maintenance, one might want to turn data plane OAM off as well, having A=1, M=1.
 
Regarding the I bit, I think even if GMPLS alarm communication is disabled, the actual monitoring of data plane connectivity is needed, again to have the up to date status of the data plane.
 
In summary, I think having a separate M bit is useful, and accounts for flexibility.
 
Best regards,
Attila
 
 

From: Wataru Imajuku [mailto:imajuku.wataru@lab.ntt.co.jp]
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 9:53 PM
To: Attila Takacs
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

Hi, Attila

 I understand this proposal automates manual configuration to set CFM interval in data plane.
 Control of CFM interval is new issue which GMPLS signaling mechanism has not covered.
 Although you outline Ethernet OAM functionality in section 2, I think it is better to describe what is difference and what is common in OAM functionality compared to circuit switched technologies
which GMPLS has been covered.

 On the other hand, I could not understand why do you need M bit in Admin Status Object.
 Why do not use A=1 ?
 Is the objective of M bit to stop sending CCM temporally ?

Best Regards
Wataru

At 04:37 07/12/06, Attila Takacs wrote:
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1 = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags">
Hi all,
 
Neil's and Dan's summary are exact. Thanks for your comments!
 
Maybe the title of the ID caused the misunderstanding, it would say more if it would read: "GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions to *Control* Ethernet OAM".
Nevertheless, when updating the ID we will clarify our point even more.
 
Best regards,
Attila

From: Dan Li [mailto:danli@huawei.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 6:01 PM
To: Diego Caviglia; neil.2.harrison@bt.com; Attila Takacs; tnadeau@lucidvision.com
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

Hi,

 
I think there is a misunderstanding with respect to the objective of this draft.

 
As I read this draft, it describes how to extend the RSVP protocol to support the configuration/enable the OAM function of Ethernet LSP, which I think is a good thing to do, it is not saying to use signaling protocol to do the OAM work. But anyway, it may be necessary to clarify the objective at the beginning of this draft.

 
Regards,

 
Dan

 

 
----- Original Message -----
From: Diego Caviglia
To: neil.2.harrison@bt.com ; Attila Takacs ; tnadeau@lucidvision.com
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 12:27 AM
Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

Hi Neil,

           Yes I totally agree with your analysis.



 
The is not going to redefine or reinvent the OAM that, as Thomas as pointed out, is done by IEEE, the ID just specify how to use a control plane mechanism (GMPLS) set-up at the same time data plane circuit and the related OAM.



 
Frankly specking I don$BCU(B see any layer violation here.



 
BR



 
Diego


From: neil.2.harrison@bt.com [mailto:neil.2.harrison@bt.com]
Sent: marted$B!&(B4 dicembre 2007 22.55
To: Attila Takacs; tnadeau@lucidvision.com; Diego Caviglia
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt



 
I'm puzzled.  I read the draft and thought it was excellent.  It is addressing an important operational issue, ie a critical operational OAM requirement is to ensure that whatever mechanism (MP or CP) is used to set-up/tear-down a connection (so this only applies to co-cs or co-ps modes....the cl-ps mode does not have connections of course) is harmonised to the activation/deactivation of the OAM.....specifically a CV/CC flow.   If we don't ensure this then there will be obvious operational problems.  This is essentially what the draft is about.



 
Further, GMPLS is a generic OOB CP technique.....it is not a specific layer network technology per se (but it is specific in it's choice of signalling and routing components).  So one can apply a largely similar (GMPLS) CP technique to all co-cs mode technologies (whether they are partitioning a space, freq or time resource - see Note) and co-ps mode technologies (which only applies to partitioning a time resource - see Note) on the assumption that the technology is correctly architected in the DP for the mode considered.  It's pretty hard not to correctly architect the co-cs mode, but it's quite easy to incorrectly architect the co-ps mode, eg one can't violate the rules of a connection in the co-cs mode but one can in the co-ps mode.



 
Note - When we partition a time resource in regular time-slices we create a co-cs mode layer network.  When we partition a time resource in irregular time-slices we create a co-ps mode layer network.  More information on labelling and resource partitioning can be found in the work on unified modelling (of networks) in G.800.



 
regards, Neil

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Attila Takacs
Sent: 05 December 2007 02:03
To: Thomas Nadeau; Diego Caviglia
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

Hi Tom,

please see inline.

Best regards,

Attila


From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 2:19 AM
To: Diego Caviglia
Cc: Attila Takacs; ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com
Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt



 
On Dec 4, 2007, at 7:33 PM, Diego Caviglia wrote:
Hi Thomas,

                 My understanding of the ID was that RSVP-TE can be used to $BAQ(Biggyback$B!)(BCFM set-up, otherwise the scenario is: usage of RSVP-TE to set-up the LSP and NMS (meaning everything that is not control plane) to enable to CFM for the LSP.



 
As I understand it, the IEEE is working on set-up of CFM (and MEPs), as are some vendors I know. *)

This to me seems like the right way to do this.



 
IEEE specified CFM and MIBs to setup CFM.

Diego's summary is correct: one can use an NMS or a control plane to setup the data plane. In this case we propose to use GMPLS to setup the data plane: both forwarding + OAM.

From your comment I see that you$BCS(Be not happy with the fact the ID is so technology specific am I right? 

 

Precisely; its gluing CFM to RSVP-TE/GMPLS as a transport.

I do not see your point with gluing. What do you mean by "as transport"? GMPLS is just controlling OAM, CFM is run solely in the data plane.

 

 

If yes do you agree with the fact that could be useful in general to use the same signaling $BAT(Bession$B!)(Bto set-up the LSP and to enable the CFM?

 

No, I do not agree.  Again, if CFM is to be set-up e2e, let the IEEE define this. Leave GMPLS to CCAMP.

 

 

Sorry, I cannot follow.

 

 



 


 


 
--Tom



 




 
 Best Regards


Diego
From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Nadeau
Sent: marted$B!&(B4 dicembre 2007 11.30
To: Attila Takacs
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com
Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

On Dec 4, 2007, at 1:51 PM, Attila Takacs wrote:
Hi Thomas,

Thank you for the comments!

Please see answers inline.

Best regards,
Attila
From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 2:58 PM
To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Cc: Attila Takacs; balazs.gero@ericsson.com
Subject: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

After reading this draft, I have some questions/comments.

1) Overall, I am concerned that the definition of a new TLV and these procedures represent

what amounts to a laying violation and ask that the ADs take a look at this

approach closely. This is similar to the now-rejected approach that was proposed

in the l2vpn WG about munging CFM + PWs.  To my reading, this is essentially

the same thing. If you want to run CFM, run it natively over the ethernet interfaces and

have no regard for the underlying topology (GMPLS, PWs, etc...) otherwise you

will be creating a mess for implementations and interoperability.

The application of the draft is exactly for what you are calling out: when CFM is run natively over the Ethernet interfaces. The document focuses on GELS and Ethernet LSPs. That is, to establish CFM entities for GMPLS controlled Ethernet LSPs. Hence, I think there is no layer violation issue.

         This solution specifically only works for GMPLS ethernet LSPs, right? 

What do I do if I want to set up MPLS ethernet LSPs (i.e.: PWs) and do CFM over those? Oh,

that is a different solution, right?  Then what do I do if I want to run CFM over some new type of

ethernet LSP in the future? More protocol hacks?  The point is to use CFM over an ethernet interface

without the underlying layers knowing. This is good networking architecture design, that simplifies

implementations and makes them more robust, as well as makes using them operationally much

easier.

2) The introductory sections in this draft give a lot of discussion about fast fault detection. I

am puzzled by this given that GMPLS networks tend to run over quickly self-healing

optical infrastructures. Is it therefore truly necessary to motivate this work by

requiring fast CFMs?

It is right that frequent CCMs are not required if the layers below Ethernet handle protection. However, the ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs where Ethernet is not just a single hop above a transport LSP. In this case Ethernet layer (for clarity GELS) may provide protection for Ethernet LSPs. In any case,  the whole point of the ID is to allow for the appropriate configuration of CFM for Ethernet LSPs with GMPLS.

3) This document does not cover E-LMI. Why not?

E-LMI is run over the MEF UNI. The ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs within a network.

For the purposes of this document, we only discuss Ethernet OAM

   [IEEE-CFM] aspects that are relevant for the connectivity monitoring

   of bidirectional point-to-point PBB-TE connections. 

4) Is this the right place to define this document or should this be done in GELS?

Well, GELS is done in CCAMP...this seems to be the right place.

5)   In section 2 you make the following statement:

2.  GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions

    To simplify the configuration of connectivity monitoring, when an

   Ethernet LSP is signalled the associated MEPs should be automatically

    established.  Further more, GMPLS signalling should be able to

  enable/disable connectivity monitoring of a particular Ethernet LSP.

To my point in #1 above, you should use the native CFM functionality over the ethernet interface and signal

those capabilities to the bridges at both ends using the IEEE CFM signaling procedures (when and if they

are created).  If you want to test the underlying GMPLS LSP(s), then you should use some

other mechanism defined for that layer such as the work stated in draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt

See the note to your point #1. There is no relation to the gmpls-LSP-ping draft.

         The point I am making is that perhaps it should.

         --Tom

 

-------------------------------------
Wataru Imajuku, Ph.D.@NTT Network Innovation Labs
TEL: +81-46-859-4315
FAX: +81-46-859-5541

------_=_NextPart_001_01C837B5.27F0AC40-- From lanzillottacgz@BREAKPOINT.CA Thu Dec 06 04:03:29 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0Cdl-0002uL-Qs for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 04:03:29 -0500 Received: from host92-110-dynamic.10-87-r.retail.telecomitalia.it ([87.10.110.92]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0Cdl-0000nT-6o for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 04:03:29 -0500 Received: from athlon64-3500 ([172.135.105.160] helo=athlon64-3500) by host92-110-dynamic.10-87-r.retail.telecomitalia.it ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1fAyet-000LSC-fe for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 6 Dec 2007 10:04:02 +0100 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 10:03:28 +0100 To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org From: "Nannan lanzillotta" Subject: 11025-94 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 071205-2, 05/12/2007), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Score: 2.1 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 8ac499381112328dd60aea5b1ff596ea Good day ccamp-archive hardship with your intimate relations? http://carrycolumn.com Nannan lanzillotta From NanniebowditchCornelius@mathleague.com Thu Dec 06 04:25:49 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0CzN-0006sa-Re for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 04:25:49 -0500 Received: from [92.97.26.230] (helo=hpdx2200) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0CzN-0001p3-C5 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 04:25:49 -0500 Received: from covalent by mathleague.com with SMTP id wbUc8Ttgu2 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2007 13:25:31 -0400 From: "Nannie Washburn" To: Cc: , Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0DXi-0001pK-GI for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 05:01:18 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0DXh-0003QF-W8 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 05:01:18 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J0DHB-0007Ik-M2 for ccamp-data@psg.com; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 09:44:13 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE, STOX_REPLY_TYPE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [64.59.128.220] (helo=bpd2mo2no.prod.shawcable.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J0DGe-0007He-F6 for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 09:43:57 +0000 Received: from bpd2mi2no.prod.shawcable.com (bpd2mi2no-qfe3.prod.shawcable.com [10.0.184.121]) by bpd2mo2no.prod.shawcable.com (Sun ONE Messaging Server 6.0 HotFix 1.01 (built Mar 15 2004)) with ESMTP id <0JSM00HDWGCRR020@bpd2mo2no.prod.shawcable.com> for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 02:43:39 -0700 (MST) Received: from your029b8cecfe (S010600184d8d11c3.vc.shawcable.net [24.82.167.42]) by bpd2mi2no.prod.shawcable.com (Sun ONE Messaging Server 6.0 HotFix 1.01 (built Mar 15 2004)) with ESMTP id <0JSM00FVEGCPU630@bpd2mi2no.prod.shawcable.com> for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 02:43:39 -0700 (MST) Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 09:43:28 +0000 From: Adrian Farrel Subject: GELS: what happened alternatively what will happen To: Loa Andersson , ccamp Reply-to: Adrian Farrel Message-id: <02dd01c837ec$79172a70$bd148182@your029b8cecfe> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1; reply-type=original Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <47575E4A.1040500@pi.se> Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 3e15cc4fdc61d7bce84032741d11c8e5 Hi Loa, Deborah and I want to move the Ethernet I-Ds forward (into the WG) as quickly as possible, but we also need to organise our thoughts. Can you give us a couple of days to work out what we want to do with the drafts, and in what order? In the mean time, a reminder to the whole WG that they should review and comment on the list. Questions and issues are welcomed. Suggested text is best. Thanks, Adrian ----- Original Message ----- From: "Loa Andersson" To: "ccamp" Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 2:28 AM Subject: what happened alternatively what will happen > Adrian and Deborah, > > yesterday a set of IDs on GMPLS control of Ethernet were presented; > given that I remember correctly the author of the requirement draft > said they think that the draft will be ready to become a working > group document after next IETF meeting. > > The authors of the architecture draft for GMPLS controlled Ethernet > and the protocol extensions for control of PBT-TE networks requested > that their draft should be accepted as working group documents. > > No sense of the room were taken or "take it to the list" statement. > > What's the plan? > > /Loa > -- > Loa Andersson > > Principal Networking Architect > Acreo AB phone: +46 8 632 77 14 > Isafjordsgatan 22 mobile: +46 739 81 21 64 > Kista, Sweden email: loa.andersson@acreo.se > loa@pi.se > > This email was Anti Virus checked by Astaro Security Gateway. > http://www.astaro.com > > > From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Thu Dec 06 05:13:05 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0Dj7-0006sJ-0N for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 05:13:05 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0Dj0-0006FI-HS for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 05:13:04 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J0DUU-0008T6-Ka for ccamp-data@psg.com; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 09:57:58 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [217.32.164.137] (helo=smtp1.smtp.bt.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J0DTu-0008OV-CV for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 09:57:40 +0000 Received: from E03MVB2-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net ([193.113.197.109]) by smtp1.smtp.bt.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 6 Dec 2007 09:57:27 +0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 09:55:04 -0000 Message-ID: <2ECAA42C79676B42AEBAC11229CA7D0C018813BC@E03MVB2-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net> In-Reply-To: <74C2EEA4-898C-43A0-AB54-CAD9C53E59BE@lucidvision.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Thread-Index: Acg3i+1GEuVpw1alT4uzeK4Jfb5eVQAUoEtA From: To: , Cc: , , , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Dec 2007 09:57:27.0078 (UTC) FILETIME=[683F4460:01C837EE] Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 93ea548d5fde6eb89af31f1faab96344 Hi Tom, You asked 05 December 2007 22:12 > What do we do for the other signaling protocols outside > of CCAMP? Do we now extend BGP, RSVP-TE (for MPLS), and LDP=20 > to control OAM there as well? >=20 > --Tom The principle I gave stands....this behaviour is required irrespective = of what mechanism (CP signalling or MP provisioning) is responsible for = setting-up/tearing-down a *connection*. This is not a new requirement. = I've mentioned this requirement several times in posts to various WGs = over the years and you will find this requirement mentioned in Y.1711. = We also stated this as a requirement in the now expired draft = 'draft-willis-pwe3-requirements-00.txt (which can still be found at = http://www2.tools.ietf.org/html/draft-willis-pwe3-requirements-00) when = attempting to provide guidance to PWE3 on OAM requirements back in 2004. = In section 1.2 therein we gave some background wrt to the different OAM = required for the 3 network modes of cl-ps, co-ps and co-cs (as the OAM = required is not the same in all 3 cases)....here is the relevant extract = wrt to the activation/deactivation topic of this thread: ".....the OAM activation/deactivation must be harmonized with the = set-up/tear-down of the path. Failure to harmonize OAM = activation/deactivation with PW set-up/tear-down will lead to either: - lack of OAM protection when the PW is set-up, or false alarms when the PW is torn-down; or - OAM being activated prior to PW set-up and significant problems due to operator error." You'll note I highlighted the word *connection* above....this is rather = important. One can't activate/deactivate OAM in concert with connection = set-up/tear-down if one does not have a connection, eg cl-ps mode. = There are also no problems when dealing with the co-cs mode as this is = forced to respect the requirements of a connection (which, to summarise = are: (i) single source (ii) no re-ordering of traffic units). However, = the LDP form of MPLS does not respect the requirements of a connection = as it creates a mp2p merging construct.....PHP has a similar merging = behaviour on the last hop on an LSP. So the activation/deactivation of = OAM in concert with such constructs has no meaning.....indeed, one can't = even say we have a proper layer network here, and this is not simply due = to violating the rules of a connection but results from the fact that an = MPLS traffic unit does not provide consistent characteristic = information, eg the label field can take on at least 4 different = semantics (and this list is still growing, eg fat PWs). If not obvious = what the problem is here, if traffic gets misdirected then the receiving = node could misinterpret the meaning of the label. =20 So, we can't apply the requirement MPLS LDP/PHP networks.....these can = only use 'on-demand' OAM mechanisms.....just the nature of the beast.=20 However, when we have a co-cs or co-ps mode network that does respect = the requirements of a connection then it makes a huge amount of = operational sense to make sure one activates/deactivates the OAM in = conjunction with the connection set-up/tear-down. And this is not simply a matter of 'good housekeeping' for the service = provider, including things like the ability to provide a = protection-switching capability, there is a security issue = here......which is especially germane in the case of a co-ps mode = technology based on label-swapping. That is, if one has a defect that = causes misdirected traffic it is important to be able to proactively = detect such a case and take appropriate action, eg squelch the traffic, = in order to protect the integrity of the affected client traffic. This issue is not a problem for networks that have network unique and = non-swapped labelling, ie all cl-ps mode technologies and PBB-TE in the = co-ps mode, ie these network are inherently robust to misconnectivity = defects without any OAM at all (since each traffic unit essentially = carries it own CV function due to presence of the SA). However, in the = case of PBB-TE we still require the OAM activation/deactivation in = concert with the connection set-up/tear-down as we need to distinguish = the cases of 'quiescent client traffic' from 'simple break'. Moreover, = as I already noted, we also need the OAM for protection-switching = requirements. regards, Neil=20 >=20 > =09 > > All, > > > > I'm normally a bit careful with models "layer networks" > that seems to > > be a rather cumbersome way of explaining the obvious; > however in this > > case when it is used demonstrate that no layer violation is > at hand I > > is inclined to accept that result. > > > > I also agree with Dan that it seems to be a good idea to > use RSVP-TE > > to provision OAM functionality is a good idea. > > > > With that it we should just go ahead and accept this as a > ccamp work > > item. > > > > /Loa > > > > Dan Li wrote: > >> MessageHi, > >> > >> I think there is a misunderstanding with respect to the objective=20 > >> of this draft. > >> > >> As I read this draft, it describes how to extend the RSVP protocol > > > > to support the configuration/enable the OAM function of > Ethernet LSP, > > > > which I think is a good thing to do, it is not saying to > use signaling > > > > protocol to do the OAM work. But anyway, it may be necessary to=20 > > clarify > > > > the objective at the beginning of this draft. > >> > >> Regards, > >> > >> Dan > >> > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: Diego Caviglia > >> To: neil.2.harrison@bt.com ; Attila Takacs ; > tnadeau@lucidvision.com > >> Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org > >> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 12:27 AM > >> Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt > >> > >> > >> Hi Neil, > >> > >> Yes I totally agree with your analysis. > >> > >> > >> > >> The is not going to redefine or reinvent the OAM that, as Thomas=20 > >> as pointed out, is done by IEEE, the ID just specify how to use a > >> control plane mechanism (GMPLS) set-up at the same time=20 > data plane > >> circuit and the related OAM. > >> > >> > >> > >> Frankly specking I don't see any layer violation here. > >> > >> > >> > >> BR > >> > >> > >> > >> Diego > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>=20 > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> --------- > >> > >> From: neil.2.harrison@bt.com [mailto:neil.2.harrison@bt.com] > >> Sent: marted=EC 4 dicembre 2007 22.55 > >> To: Attila Takacs; tnadeau@lucidvision.com; Diego Caviglia > >> Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org > >> Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt > >> > >> > >> > >> I'm puzzled. I read the draft and thought it was excellent. It=20 > >> is addressing an important operational issue, ie a critical > >> operational OAM requirement is to ensure that whatever mechanism =20 > >> (MP or CP) is used to set-up/tear-down a connection (so this only =20 > >> applies to co-cs or co-ps modes....the cl-ps mode does not have =20 > >> connections of course) is harmonised to the=20 > activation/deactivation > >> of the OAM.....specifically a CV/CC flow. If we don't=20 > ensure this > >> then there will be obvious operational problems. This is > >> essentially what the draft is about. > >> > >> > >> > >> Further, GMPLS is a generic OOB CP technique.....it is not a=20 > >> specific layer network technology per se (but it is specific in > >> it's choice of signalling and routing components). So one can =20 > >> apply a largely similar (GMPLS) CP technique to all co-cs mode =20 > >> technologies (whether they are partitioning a space, freq or time =20 > >> resource - see Note) and co-ps mode technologies (which only =20 > >> applies to partitioning a time resource - see Note) on the =20 > >> assumption that the technology is correctly architected in the DP =20 > >> for the mode considered. It's pretty hard not to correctly =20 > >> architect the co-cs mode, but it's quite easy to incorrectly =20 > >> architect the co-ps mode, eg one can't violate the rules of a =20 > >> connection in the co-cs mode but one can in the co-ps mode. > >> > >> > >> > >> Note - When we partition a time resource in regular time-slices we = > >> create a co-cs mode layer network. When we partition a time > >> resource in irregular time-slices we create a co-ps mode layer =20 > >> network. More information on labelling and resource partitioning =20 > >> can be found in the work on unified modelling (of=20 > networks) in G.800. > >> > >> > >> > >> regards, Neil > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] = > >> On Behalf Of Attila Takacs > >> Sent: 05 December 2007 02:03 > >> To: Thomas Nadeau; Diego Caviglia > >> Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org > >> Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt > >> > >> Hi Tom, > >> > >> please see inline. > >> > >> Best regards, > >> > >> Attila > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>=20 > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> ----- > >> > >> From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com] > >> Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 2:19 AM > >> To: Diego Caviglia > >> Cc: Attila Takacs; ccamp@ops.ietf.org; > balazs.gero@ericsson.com > >> Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt > >> > >> > >> > >> On Dec 4, 2007, at 7:33 PM, Diego Caviglia wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Hi Thomas, > >> > >> My understanding of the ID was that RSVP-TE=20 > >> can be used to 'piggyback' CFM set-up, otherwise the scenario is: > >> usage of RSVP-TE to set-up the LSP and NMS (meaning=20 > everything that > >> is not control plane) to enable to CFM for the LSP. > >> > >> > >> > >> As I understand it, the IEEE is working on set-up of CFM (and=20 > >> MEPs), as are some vendors I know. *) > >> > >> This to me seems like the right way to do this. > >> > >> > >> > >> IEEE specified CFM and MIBs to setup CFM. > >> > >> Diego's summary is correct: one can use an NMS or a control=20 > >> plane to setup the data plane. In this case we propose to > use GMPLS > >> to setup the data plane: both forwarding + OAM. > >> > >> From your comment I see that you're not happy with the fact=20 > >> the ID is so technology specific am I right? > >> > >> > >> > >> Precisely; its gluing CFM to RSVP-TE/GMPLS as a transport. > >> > >> I do not see your point with gluing. What do you mean by "as=20 > >> transport"? GMPLS is just controlling OAM, CFM is run > solely in the > >> data plane. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> If yes do you agree with the fact that could be useful in=20 > >> general to use the same signaling 'session' to set-up the LSP and > >> to enable the CFM? > >> > >> > >> > >> No, I do not agree. Again, if CFM is to be set-up e2e, let=20 > >> the IEEE define this. Leave GMPLS to CCAMP. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Sorry, I cannot follow. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> --Tom > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Best Regards > >> > >> > >> Diego > >> > >> > >>=20 > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> ----- > >> > >> From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-=20 > >> ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Nadeau > >> Sent: marted=EC 4 dicembre 2007 11.30 > >> To: Attila Takacs > >> Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com > >> Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt > >> > >> On Dec 4, 2007, at 1:51 PM, Attila Takacs wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Hi Thomas, > >> > >> Thank you for the comments! > >> > >> Please see answers inline. > >> > >> Best regards, > >> Attila > >> > >> > >>=20 > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> --- > >> > >> From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com] > >> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 2:58 PM > >> To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org > >> Cc: Attila Takacs; balazs.gero@ericsson.com > >> Subject: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt > >> > >> After reading this draft, I have some questions/comments. > >> > >> 1) Overall, I am concerned that the definition of a new TLV=20 > >> and these procedures represent > >> > >> what amounts to a laying violation and ask that the ADs take = > >> a look at this > >> > >> approach closely. This is similar to the now-rejected=20 > >> approach that was proposed > >> > >> in the l2vpn WG about munging CFM + PWs. To my reading,=20 > >> this is essentially > >> > >> the same thing. If you want to run CFM, run it natively over = > >> the ethernet interfaces and > >> > >> have no regard for the underlying topology (GMPLS, PWs, > >> etc...) otherwise you > >> > >> will be creating a mess for implementations and=20 > >> interoperability. > >> > >> The application of the draft is exactly for what you are=20 > >> calling out: when CFM is run natively over the Ethernet > interfaces. > >> The document focuses on GELS and Ethernet LSPs. That is, to > >> establish CFM entities for GMPLS controlled Ethernet LSPs.=20 > Hence, I > >> think there is no layer violation issue. > >> > >> This solution specifically only works for GMPLS=20 > >> ethernet LSPs, right? > >> > >> What do I do if I want to set up MPLS ethernet LSPs (i.e.: > >> PWs) and do CFM over those? Oh, > >> > >> that is a different solution, right? Then what do I do if I=20 > >> want to run CFM over some new type of > >> > >> ethernet LSP in the future? More protocol hacks? The point is = > >> to use CFM over an ethernet interface > >> > >> without the underlying layers knowing. This is good networking = > >> architecture design, that simplifies > >> > >> implementations and makes them more robust, as well as makes=20 > >> using them operationally much > >> > >> easier. > >> > >> 2) The introductory sections in this draft give a lot of=20 > >> discussion about fast fault detection. I > >> > >> am puzzled by this given that GMPLS networks tend to run=20 > >> over quickly self-healing > >> > >> optical infrastructures. Is it therefore truly necessary=20 > >> to motivate this work by > >> > >> requiring fast CFMs? > >> > >> It is right that frequent CCMs are not required if the=20 > >> layers below Ethernet handle protection. However, the ID > focuses on > >> Ethernet LSPs where Ethernet is not just a single hop above a > >> transport LSP. In this case Ethernet layer (for clarity GELS) may =20 > >> provide protection for Ethernet LSPs. In any case, the=20 > whole point > >> of the ID is to allow for the appropriate configuration of > CFM for > >> Ethernet LSPs with GMPLS. > >> > >> 3) This document does not cover E-LMI. Why not? > >> > >> E-LMI is run over the MEF UNI. The ID focuses on Ethernet=20 > >> LSPs within a network. > >> > >> For the purposes of this document, we only discuss=20 > >> Ethernet OAM > >> > >> [IEEE-CFM] aspects that are relevant for the=20 > >> connectivity monitoring > >> > >> of bidirectional point-to-point PBB-TE connections. > >> > >> 4) Is this the right place to define this document or=20 > >> should this be done in GELS? > >> > >> Well, GELS is done in CCAMP...this seems to be the right=20 > >> place. > >> > >> 5) In section 2 you make the following statement: > >> > >> 2. GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions > >> > >> To simplify the configuration of connectivity=20 > >> monitoring, when an > >> > >> Ethernet LSP is signalled the associated MEPs should be = > >> automatically > >> > >> established. Further more, GMPLS signalling should be = > >> able to > >> > >> enable/disable connectivity monitoring of a particular=20 > >> Ethernet LSP. > >> > >> To my point in #1 above, you should use the native CFM=20 > >> functionality over the ethernet interface and signal > >> > >> those capabilities to the bridges at both ends using the=20 > >> IEEE CFM signaling procedures (when and if they > >> > >> are created). If you want to test the underlying GMPLS=20 > >> LSP(s), then you should use some > >> > >> other mechanism defined for that layer such as the work=20 > >> stated in draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt > >> > >> See the note to your point #1. There is no relation to the=20 > >> gmpls-LSP-ping draft. > >> > >> The point I am making is that perhaps it should. > >> > >> --Tom > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > Loa Andersson > > > > Principal Networking Architect > > Acreo AB phone: +46 8 632 77 14 > > Isafjordsgatan 22 mobile: +46 739 81 21 64 > > Kista, Sweden email: loa.andersson@acreo.se > > loa@pi.se > > > > This email was Anti Virus checked by Astaro Security Gateway. > > http://www.astaro.com > > > > >=20 >=20 From JosefagravesKoenig@annapolischamber.com Thu Dec 06 05:28:18 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0Dxq-0002sm-P2 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 05:28:18 -0500 Received: from cpe-66-61-117-142.neo.res.rr.com ([66.61.117.142] helo=johnsonfamily.belkin) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0Dxq-0004f8-G7 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 05:28:18 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host16168795.annapolischamber.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id R1pIIEBz00.963075.XCq.Lxa.7137199020068 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2007 05:28:00 +0500 Message-ID: <13003401c837f2$b412e690$0202a8c0@JohnsonFamily> From: "Rosanne Rudd" To: Cc: , =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Cialis Soft=20 Tabs would help you to make better sex more often and to bring=20 unimaginable plesure to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue = and get=20 ready for action in 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of = men after=20 taking this medication were able to have perfect erection during = 24=20 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Cialis Soft Tabs gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_130030_01C837F2.B412E690-- From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Thu Dec 06 05:44:11 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0EDD-0000w1-Pe for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 05:44:11 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0ED7-0007eS-1x for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 05:44:11 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J0E41-000BiX-Pv for ccamp-data@psg.com; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 10:34:41 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [195.101.245.16] (helo=p-mail2.rd.francetelecom.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J0E3S-000BeU-16 for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 10:34:24 +0000 Received: from FTRDMEL2.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.193.117.153]) by ftrdsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 6 Dec 2007 11:33:39 +0100 x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 11:33:56 +0100 Message-ID: <7DBAFEC6A76F3E42817DF1EBE64CB026051A31A9@ftrdmel2> In-Reply-To: <74C2EEA4-898C-43A0-AB54-CAD9C53E59BE@lucidvision.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Thread-Index: Acg3jXZaSbMWwJMzR3OTicQlihNz0gAY+PTg References: <0428AC48A879ED46A94F39D5665DF684DF2F9A@esealmw110.eemea.ericsson.se> <002c01c83760$5edf74f0$42418182@dan> <47570BE6.1020007@pi.se> <74C2EEA4-898C-43A0-AB54-CAD9C53E59BE@lucidvision.com> From: "MEURIC Julien RD-CORE-LAN" To: "Thomas Nadeau" Cc: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Dec 2007 10:33:39.0253 (UTC) FILETIME=[76F6DE50:01C837F3] Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 544c2133b952fa264803d857bb70855b Hi Tom. Good question, but I guess this can already find some pieces of answers. = Quoting the BFD base draft: "For example, an OSPF implementation may = request a BFD session to be established to a neighbor discovered using = the OSPF Hello protocol." Personally, I believe it is useful to have a signaling mechanism to = configure OAM in a distributed environment. Considering a GMPLS context, = RSVP-TE is just there between end points. What is more, when = establishing an LSP, I am concerned with recovery aspects (already there = thanks to the Protection object) and obviously with the OAM allowing = this recovery to happen (and OAM is not implicit in case of = packet-switched connection). Regards, Julien -----Original Message----- From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On = Behalf Of Thomas Nadeau What do we do for the other signaling protocols outside of CCAMP? Do we now extend BGP, RSVP-TE (for MPLS), and LDP to control OAM there as well? --Tom =09 > All, > > I'm normally a bit careful with models "layer networks" that seems > to be a rather cumbersome way of explaining the obvious; however > in this case when it is used demonstrate that no layer violation > is at hand I is inclined to accept that result. > > I also agree with Dan that it seems to be a good idea to use > RSVP-TE to provision OAM functionality is a good idea. > > With that it we should just go ahead and accept this as a > ccamp work item. > > /Loa > > Dan Li wrote: >> MessageHi, >> >> I think there is a misunderstanding with respect to the objective =20 >> of this draft. >> >> As I read this draft, it describes how to extend the RSVP protocol > > to support the configuration/enable the OAM function of Ethernet LSP, > > which I think is a good thing to do, it is not saying to use signaling > > protocol to do the OAM work. But anyway, it may be necessary to =20 > clarify > > the objective at the beginning of this draft. >> >> Regards, >> >> Dan >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Diego Caviglia >> To: neil.2.harrison@bt.com ; Attila Takacs ; tnadeau@lucidvision.com >> Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org >> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 12:27 AM >> Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt >> >> >> Hi Neil, >> >> Yes I totally agree with your analysis. >> >> >> >> The is not going to redefine or reinvent the OAM that, as Thomas =20 >> as pointed out, is done by IEEE, the ID just specify how to use a =20 >> control plane mechanism (GMPLS) set-up at the same time data plane =20 >> circuit and the related OAM. >> >> >> >> Frankly specking I don't see any layer violation here. >> >> >> >> BR >> >> >> >> Diego >> >> >> >> >> = -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- >> >> From: neil.2.harrison@bt.com [mailto:neil.2.harrison@bt.com] >> Sent: marted=EC 4 dicembre 2007 22.55 >> To: Attila Takacs; tnadeau@lucidvision.com; Diego Caviglia >> Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org >> Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt >> >> >> >> I'm puzzled. I read the draft and thought it was excellent. It =20 >> is addressing an important operational issue, ie a critical =20 >> operational OAM requirement is to ensure that whatever mechanism =20 >> (MP or CP) is used to set-up/tear-down a connection (so this only =20 >> applies to co-cs or co-ps modes....the cl-ps mode does not have =20 >> connections of course) is harmonised to the activation/deactivation =20 >> of the OAM.....specifically a CV/CC flow. If we don't ensure this =20 >> then there will be obvious operational problems. This is =20 >> essentially what the draft is about. >> >> >> >> Further, GMPLS is a generic OOB CP technique.....it is not a =20 >> specific layer network technology per se (but it is specific in =20 >> it's choice of signalling and routing components). So one can =20 >> apply a largely similar (GMPLS) CP technique to all co-cs mode =20 >> technologies (whether they are partitioning a space, freq or time =20 >> resource - see Note) and co-ps mode technologies (which only =20 >> applies to partitioning a time resource - see Note) on the =20 >> assumption that the technology is correctly architected in the DP =20 >> for the mode considered. It's pretty hard not to correctly =20 >> architect the co-cs mode, but it's quite easy to incorrectly =20 >> architect the co-ps mode, eg one can't violate the rules of a =20 >> connection in the co-cs mode but one can in the co-ps mode. >> >> >> >> Note - When we partition a time resource in regular time-slices we =20 >> create a co-cs mode layer network. When we partition a time =20 >> resource in irregular time-slices we create a co-ps mode layer =20 >> network. More information on labelling and resource partitioning =20 >> can be found in the work on unified modelling (of networks) in G.800. >> >> >> >> regards, Neil >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] =20 >> On Behalf Of Attila Takacs >> Sent: 05 December 2007 02:03 >> To: Thomas Nadeau; Diego Caviglia >> Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org >> Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt >> >> Hi Tom, >> >> please see inline. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Attila >> >> >> >> >> = -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - >> >> From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 2:19 AM >> To: Diego Caviglia >> Cc: Attila Takacs; ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com >> Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt >> >> >> >> On Dec 4, 2007, at 7:33 PM, Diego Caviglia wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi Thomas, >> >> My understanding of the ID was that RSVP-TE =20 >> can be used to 'piggyback' CFM set-up, otherwise the scenario is: =20 >> usage of RSVP-TE to set-up the LSP and NMS (meaning everything that =20 >> is not control plane) to enable to CFM for the LSP. >> >> >> >> As I understand it, the IEEE is working on set-up of CFM (and =20 >> MEPs), as are some vendors I know. *) >> >> This to me seems like the right way to do this. >> >> >> >> IEEE specified CFM and MIBs to setup CFM. >> >> Diego's summary is correct: one can use an NMS or a control =20 >> plane to setup the data plane. In this case we propose to use GMPLS =20 >> to setup the data plane: both forwarding + OAM. >> >> From your comment I see that you're not happy with the fact =20 >> the ID is so technology specific am I right? >> >> >> >> Precisely; its gluing CFM to RSVP-TE/GMPLS as a transport. >> >> I do not see your point with gluing. What do you mean by "as =20 >> transport"? GMPLS is just controlling OAM, CFM is run solely in the =20 >> data plane. >> >> >> >> >> >> If yes do you agree with the fact that could be useful in =20 >> general to use the same signaling 'session' to set-up the LSP and =20 >> to enable the CFM? >> >> >> >> No, I do not agree. Again, if CFM is to be set-up e2e, let =20 >> the IEEE define this. Leave GMPLS to CCAMP. >> >> >> >> >> >> Sorry, I cannot follow. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> --Tom >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Best Regards >> >> >> Diego >> >> >> = -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - >> >> From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-=20 >> ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Nadeau >> Sent: marted=EC 4 dicembre 2007 11.30 >> To: Attila Takacs >> Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com >> Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt >> >> On Dec 4, 2007, at 1:51 PM, Attila Takacs wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi Thomas, >> >> Thank you for the comments! >> >> Please see answers inline. >> >> Best regards, >> Attila >> >> >> = ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 2:58 PM >> To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org >> Cc: Attila Takacs; balazs.gero@ericsson.com >> Subject: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt >> >> After reading this draft, I have some questions/comments. >> >> 1) Overall, I am concerned that the definition of a new TLV =20 >> and these procedures represent >> >> what amounts to a laying violation and ask that the ADs take =20 >> a look at this >> >> approach closely. This is similar to the now-rejected =20 >> approach that was proposed >> >> in the l2vpn WG about munging CFM + PWs. To my reading, =20 >> this is essentially >> >> the same thing. If you want to run CFM, run it natively over =20 >> the ethernet interfaces and >> >> have no regard for the underlying topology (GMPLS, PWs, =20 >> etc...) otherwise you >> >> will be creating a mess for implementations and =20 >> interoperability. >> >> The application of the draft is exactly for what you are =20 >> calling out: when CFM is run natively over the Ethernet interfaces. =20 >> The document focuses on GELS and Ethernet LSPs. That is, to =20 >> establish CFM entities for GMPLS controlled Ethernet LSPs. Hence, I =20 >> think there is no layer violation issue. >> >> This solution specifically only works for GMPLS =20 >> ethernet LSPs, right? >> >> What do I do if I want to set up MPLS ethernet LSPs (i.e.: =20 >> PWs) and do CFM over those? Oh, >> >> that is a different solution, right? Then what do I do if I =20 >> want to run CFM over some new type of >> >> ethernet LSP in the future? More protocol hacks? The point is =20 >> to use CFM over an ethernet interface >> >> without the underlying layers knowing. This is good networking =20 >> architecture design, that simplifies >> >> implementations and makes them more robust, as well as makes =20 >> using them operationally much >> >> easier. >> >> 2) The introductory sections in this draft give a lot of =20 >> discussion about fast fault detection. I >> >> am puzzled by this given that GMPLS networks tend to run =20 >> over quickly self-healing >> >> optical infrastructures. Is it therefore truly necessary =20 >> to motivate this work by >> >> requiring fast CFMs? >> >> It is right that frequent CCMs are not required if the =20 >> layers below Ethernet handle protection. However, the ID focuses on =20 >> Ethernet LSPs where Ethernet is not just a single hop above a =20 >> transport LSP. In this case Ethernet layer (for clarity GELS) may =20 >> provide protection for Ethernet LSPs. In any case, the whole point =20 >> of the ID is to allow for the appropriate configuration of CFM for =20 >> Ethernet LSPs with GMPLS. >> >> 3) This document does not cover E-LMI. Why not? >> >> E-LMI is run over the MEF UNI. The ID focuses on Ethernet =20 >> LSPs within a network. >> >> For the purposes of this document, we only discuss =20 >> Ethernet OAM >> >> [IEEE-CFM] aspects that are relevant for the =20 >> connectivity monitoring >> >> of bidirectional point-to-point PBB-TE connections. >> >> 4) Is this the right place to define this document or =20 >> should this be done in GELS? >> >> Well, GELS is done in CCAMP...this seems to be the right =20 >> place. >> >> 5) In section 2 you make the following statement: >> >> 2. GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions >> >> To simplify the configuration of connectivity =20 >> monitoring, when an >> >> Ethernet LSP is signalled the associated MEPs should be =20 >> automatically >> >> established. Further more, GMPLS signalling should be =20 >> able to >> >> enable/disable connectivity monitoring of a particular =20 >> Ethernet LSP. >> >> To my point in #1 above, you should use the native CFM =20 >> functionality over the ethernet interface and signal >> >> those capabilities to the bridges at both ends using the =20 >> IEEE CFM signaling procedures (when and if they >> >> are created). If you want to test the underlying GMPLS =20 >> LSP(s), then you should use some >> >> other mechanism defined for that layer such as the work =20 >> stated in draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt >> >> See the note to your point #1. There is no relation to the =20 >> gmpls-LSP-ping draft. >> >> The point I am making is that perhaps it should. >> >> --Tom >> >> >> > > > --=20 > Loa Andersson > > Principal Networking Architect > Acreo AB phone: +46 8 632 77 14 > Isafjordsgatan 22 mobile: +46 739 81 21 64 > Kista, Sweden email: loa.andersson@acreo.se > loa@pi.se > > This email was Anti Virus checked by Astaro Security Gateway. = http://www.astaro.com > > From KelvinhoneSalazar@grandforksherald.com Thu Dec 06 09:15:42 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0HVu-0004p6-7K for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 09:15:42 -0500 Received: from c-68-36-59-95.hsd1.nj.comcast.net ([68.36.59.95] helo=amanda.hsd1.nj.comcast.net) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0HVt-0007DZ-R7 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 09:15:42 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host29741184.grandforksherald.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id zcTQLcZp15.538289.U7u.TiL.6157611749139 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2007 09:15:26 +0500 Message-ID: <10862101c83812$7ac88eb0$6401a8c0@Amanda> From: "Grant Tate" To: , =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Cialis Soft=20 Tabs would help you to make better sex more often and to bring=20 unimaginable plesure to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue = and get=20 ready for action in 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of = men after=20 taking this medication were able to have perfect erection during = 24=20 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Cialis Soft Tabs gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_10861D_01C83812.7AC88EB0-- From Hirbod@LHUP.Edu Thu Dec 06 10:12:33 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0IOv-0006fh-7m for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 10:12:33 -0500 Received: from host30-13-static.90-82-b.business.telecomitalia.it ([82.90.13.30]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0IOu-0003aP-Kq for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 10:12:33 -0500 Received: by 10.139.81.44 with SMTP id EvVeDjvCbINvn; Thu, 6 Dec 2007 16:12:21 +0100 (GMT) Received: by 192.168.8.37 with SMTP id ifFOHRJUXVLiFj.3770226522147; Thu, 6 Dec 2007 16:12:19 +0100 (GMT) Message-ID: <0A2589CF.C778E192@LHUP.Edu> Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 16:12:16 +0100 From: "Hirbod musick" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org Subject: edonderd Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 4.1 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 7aefe408d50e9c7c47615841cb314bed adding 3 inches to my cock sure has helped me out http://sexades.com
From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Thu Dec 06 10:25:00 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0Iay-0000gV-IM for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 10:25:00 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0Iat-0006Vn-G3 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 10:25:00 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J0IB8-000CdQ-0x for ccamp-data@psg.com; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 14:58:18 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE, RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [209.191.85.56] (helo=web36805.mail.mud.yahoo.com) by psg.com with smtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J0IAu-000CcQ-Rf for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 14:58:11 +0000 Received: (qmail 80770 invoked by uid 60001); 6 Dec 2007 14:58:04 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Message-ID; b=w6rrDV1px2URYMLwS6/SsFLQ2zwJ2njAeeg4CFjdI4701UXZcUeZCPY3HlSN7KEQsZwTygMNDBMiZ+U2GL5t8NWQV/jxfAcydXolYp1ZhZzsnABhnTBKUsFUquLXIHu3/QrSdzXdv3MgPQjPgjj24DCYT5IKh0s2/zgKVSNY0e8=; X-YMail-OSG: p5DSwjkVM1mMasxNedLdB8Os7cBMpjVDkBdO.W43bGzRj4Q_RPuUmcS0509g8kOk_GP_1ffl3bfA3pewem70mfNIkeLg.8OLyqDqbBq4u3bOo6_TGil2prvA6g-- Received: from [130.129.66.54] by web36805.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 06:58:03 PST X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/818.31 YahooMailWebService/0.7.157 Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 06:58:03 -0800 (PST) From: Igor Bryskin Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt To: Attila Takacs , Wataru Imajuku Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-913381410-1196953083=:79554" Message-ID: <971230.79554.qm@web36805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 4214f59c4507d7175965807f52eb880f --0-913381410-1196953083=:79554 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-2022-jp Hi Watatru, Although I understand, I think, your point - Enabling/disabling of alarm reporting and enabling/disabling of OAM for a given connection may seem similar in spirit - I agree with Attila and Adrian: the two functions are very distinct and we certainly don't want to overload the A-bit. Cheers, Igor ----- Original Message ---- From: Attila Takacs To: Wataru Imajuku Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Sent: Wednesday, December 5, 2007 10:07:37 PM Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Hi Wataru, Just adding to Adrian's points... I think it is useful to separate A and M bits. When the LSP is put in administratively down, e.g., to avoid it is carrying traffic for any reason, it would be still useful to run data plane OAM so one knows the data plane is in tact when the LSP is put back operational. That is, A=1, M=0. On the other hand, e.g., in the case of planed maintenance, one might want to turn data plane OAM off as well, having A=1, M=1. Regarding the I bit, I think even if GMPLS alarm communication is disabled, the actual monitoring of data plane connectivity is needed, again to have the up to date status of the data plane. In summary, I think having a separate M bit is useful, and accounts for flexibility. Best regards, Attila From: Wataru Imajuku [mailto:imajuku.wataru@lab.ntt.co.jp] Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 9:53 PM To: Attila Takacs Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Hi, Attila I understand this proposal automates manual configuration to set CFM interval in data plane. Control of CFM interval is new issue which GMPLS signaling mechanism has not covered. Although you outline Ethernet OAM functionality in section 2, I think it is better to describe what is difference and what is common in OAM functionality compared to circuit switched technologies which GMPLS has been covered. On the other hand, I could not understand why do you need M bit in Admin Status Object. Why do not use A=1 ? Is the objective of M bit to stop sending CCM temporally ? Best Regards Wataru At 04:37 07/12/06, Attila Takacs wrote: "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1 = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"> Hi all, Neil's and Dan's summary are exact. Thanks for your comments! Maybe the title of the ID caused the misunderstanding, it would say more if it would read: "GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions to *Control* Ethernet OAM". Nevertheless, when updating the ID we will clarify our point even more. Best regards, Attila From: Dan Li [mailto:danli@huawei.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 6:01 PM To: Diego Caviglia; neil.2.harrison@bt.com; Attila Takacs; tnadeau@lucidvision.com Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Hi, I think there is a misunderstanding with respect to the objective of this draft. As I read this draft, it describes how to extend the RSVP protocol to support the configuration/enable the OAM function of Ethernet LSP, which I think is a good thing to do, it is not saying to use signaling protocol to do the OAM work. But anyway, it may be necessary to clarify the objective at the beginning of this draft. Regards, Dan ----- Original Message ----- From: Diego Caviglia To: neil.2.harrison@bt.com ; Attila Takacs ; tnadeau@lucidvision.com Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 12:27 AM Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Hi Neil, Yes I totally agree with your analysis. The is not going to redefine or reinvent the OAM that, as Thomas as pointed out, is done by IEEE, the ID just specify how to use a control plane mechanism (GMPLS) set-up at the same time data plane circuit and the related OAM. Frankly specking I don$BCU(B see any layer violation here. BR Diego From: neil.2.harrison@bt.com [mailto:neil.2.harrison@bt.com] Sent: marted$B!&(B4 dicembre 2007 22.55 To: Attila Takacs; tnadeau@lucidvision.com; Diego Caviglia Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt I'm puzzled. I read the draft and thought it was excellent. It is addressing an important operational issue, ie a critical operational OAM requirement is to ensure that whatever mechanism (MP or CP) is used to set-up/tear-down a connection (so this only applies to co-cs or co-ps modes....the cl-ps mode does not have connections of course) is harmonised to the activation/deactivation of the OAM.....specifically a CV/CC flow. If we don't ensure this then there will be obvious operational problems. This is essentially what the draft is about. Further, GMPLS is a generic OOB CP technique.....it is not a specific layer network technology per se (but it is specific in it's choice of signalling and routing components). So one can apply a largely similar (GMPLS) CP technique to all co-cs mode technologies (whether they are partitioning a space, freq or time resource - see Note) and co-ps mode technologies (which only applies to partitioning a time resource - see Note) on the assumption that the technology is correctly architected in the DP for the mode considered. It's pretty hard not to correctly architect the co-cs mode, but it's quite easy to incorrectly architect the co-ps mode, eg one can't violate the rules of a connection in the co-cs mode but one can in the co-ps mode. Note - When we partition a time resource in regular time-slices we create a co-cs mode layer network. When we partition a time resource in irregular time-slices we create a co-ps mode layer network. More information on labelling and resource partitioning can be found in the work on unified modelling (of networks) in G.800. regards, Neil -----Original Message----- From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Attila Takacs Sent: 05 December 2007 02:03 To: Thomas Nadeau; Diego Caviglia Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Hi Tom, please see inline. Best regards, Attila From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 2:19 AM To: Diego Caviglia Cc: Attila Takacs; ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt On Dec 4, 2007, at 7:33 PM, Diego Caviglia wrote: Hi Thomas, My understanding of the ID was that RSVP-TE can be used to $BAQ(Biggyback$B!)(BCFM set-up, otherwise the scenario is: usage of RSVP-TE to set-up the LSP and NMS (meaning everything that is not control plane) to enable to CFM for the LSP. As I understand it, the IEEE is working on set-up of CFM (and MEPs), as are some vendors I know. *) This to me seems like the right way to do this. IEEE specified CFM and MIBs to setup CFM. Diego's summary is correct: one can use an NMS or a control plane to setup the data plane. In this case we propose to use GMPLS to setup the data plane: both forwarding + OAM. From your comment I see that you$BCS(Be not happy with the fact the ID is so technology specific am I right? Precisely; its gluing CFM to RSVP-TE/GMPLS as a transport. I do not see your point with gluing. What do you mean by "as transport"? GMPLS is just controlling OAM, CFM is run solely in the data plane. If yes do you agree with the fact that could be useful in general to use the same signaling $BAT(Bession$B!)(Bto set-up the LSP and to enable the CFM? No, I do not agree. Again, if CFM is to be set-up e2e, let the IEEE define this. Leave GMPLS to CCAMP. Sorry, I cannot follow. --Tom Best Regards Diego From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Nadeau Sent: marted$B!&(B4 dicembre 2007 11.30 To: Attila Takacs Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt On Dec 4, 2007, at 1:51 PM, Attila Takacs wrote: Hi Thomas, Thank you for the comments! Please see answers inline. Best regards, Attila From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 2:58 PM To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Cc: Attila Takacs; balazs.gero@ericsson.com Subject: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt After reading this draft, I have some questions/comments. 1) Overall, I am concerned that the definition of a new TLV and these procedures represent what amounts to a laying violation and ask that the ADs take a look at this approach closely. This is similar to the now-rejected approach that was proposed in the l2vpn WG about munging CFM + PWs. To my reading, this is essentially the same thing. If you want to run CFM, run it natively over the ethernet interfaces and have no regard for the underlying topology (GMPLS, PWs, etc...) otherwise you will be creating a mess for implementations and interoperability. The application of the draft is exactly for what you are calling out: when CFM is run natively over the Ethernet interfaces. The document focuses on GELS and Ethernet LSPs. That is, to establish CFM entities for GMPLS controlled Ethernet LSPs. Hence, I think there is no layer violation issue. This solution specifically only works for GMPLS ethernet LSPs, right? What do I do if I want to set up MPLS ethernet LSPs (i.e.: PWs) and do CFM over those? Oh, that is a different solution, right? Then what do I do if I want to run CFM over some new type of ethernet LSP in the future? More protocol hacks? The point is to use CFM over an ethernet interface without the underlying layers knowing. This is good networking architecture design, that simplifies implementations and makes them more robust, as well as makes using them operationally much easier. 2) The introductory sections in this draft give a lot of discussion about fast fault detection. I am puzzled by this given that GMPLS networks tend to run over quickly self-healing optical infrastructures. Is it therefore truly necessary to motivate this work by requiring fast CFMs? It is right that frequent CCMs are not required if the layers below Ethernet handle protection. However, the ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs where Ethernet is not just a single hop above a transport LSP. In this case Ethernet layer (for clarity GELS) may provide protection for Ethernet LSPs. In any case, the whole point of the ID is to allow for the appropriate configuration of CFM for Ethernet LSPs with GMPLS. 3) This document does not cover E-LMI. Why not? E-LMI is run over the MEF UNI. The ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs within a network. For the purposes of this document, we only discuss Ethernet OAM [IEEE-CFM] aspects that are relevant for the connectivity monitoring of bidirectional point-to-point PBB-TE connections. 4) Is this the right place to define this document or should this be done in GELS? Well, GELS is done in CCAMP...this seems to be the right place. 5) In section 2 you make the following statement: 2. GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions To simplify the configuration of connectivity monitoring, when an Ethernet LSP is signalled the associated MEPs should be automatically established. Further more, GMPLS signalling should be able to enable/disable connectivity monitoring of a particular Ethernet LSP. To my point in #1 above, you should use the native CFM functionality over the ethernet interface and signal those capabilities to the bridges at both ends using the IEEE CFM signaling procedures (when and if they are created). If you want to test the underlying GMPLS LSP(s), then you should use some other mechanism defined for that layer such as the work stated in draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt See the note to your point #1. There is no relation to the gmpls-LSP-ping draft. The point I am making is that perhaps it should. --Tom ------------------------------------- Wataru Imajuku, Ph.D.@NTT Network Innovation Labs TEL: +81-46-859-4315 FAX: +81-46-859-5541 ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping --0-913381410-1196953083=:79554 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-2022-jp
Hi Watatru,

Although I understand, I think, your point - Enabling/disabling  of alarm reporting and enabling/disabling of OAM for a given connection may seem similar in spirit - I agree with Attila and Adrian: the two  functions are very distinct and we certainly don't want to overload the A-bit.

Cheers,
Igor

----- Original Message ----
From: Attila Takacs <Attila.Takacs@ericsson.com>
To: Wataru Imajuku <imajuku.wataru@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, December 5, 2007 10:07:37 PM
Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

Hi Wataru,
 
Just adding to Adrian's points...
 
I think it is useful to separate A and M bits. When the LSP is put in administratively down, e.g.,  to avoid it is carrying traffic for any reason, it would be still useful to run data plane OAM so one knows the data plane is in tact when the LSP is put back operational. That is,  A=1, M=0. On the other hand, e.g., in the case of planed maintenance, one might want to turn data plane OAM off as well, having A=1, M=1.
 
Regarding the I bit, I think even if GMPLS alarm communication is disabled, the actual monitoring of data plane connectivity is needed, again to have the up to date status of the data plane.
 
In summary, I think having a separate M bit is useful, and accounts for flexibility.
 
Best regards,
Attila
 
 

From: Wataru Imajuku [mailto:imajuku.wataru@lab.ntt.co.jp]
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 9:53 PM
To: Attila Takacs
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

Hi, Attila

 I understand this proposal automates manual configuration to set CFM interval in data plane.
 Control of CFM interval is new issue which GMPLS signaling mechanism has not covered.
 Although you outline Ethernet OAM functionality in section 2, I think it is better to describe what is difference and what is common in OAM functionality compared to circuit switched technologies
which GMPLS has been covered.

 On the other hand, I could not understand why do you need M bit in Admin Status Object.
 Why do not use A=1 ?
 Is the objective of M bit to stop sending CCM temporally ?

Best Regards
Wataru

At 04:37 07/12/06, Attila Takacs wrote:
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1 = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags">
Hi all,
 
Neil's and Dan's summary are exact. Thanks for your comments!
 
Maybe the title of the ID caused the misunderstanding, it would say more if it would read: "GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions to *Control* Ethernet OAM".
Nevertheless, when updating the ID we will clarify our point even more.
 
Best regards,
Attila

From: Dan Li [mailto:danli@huawei.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 6:01 PM
To: Diego Caviglia; neil.2.harrison@bt.com; Attila Takacs; tnadeau@lucidvision.com
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

Hi,

 
I think there is a misunderstanding with respect to the objective of this draft.

 
As I read this draft, it describes how to extend the RSVP protocol to support the configuration/enable the OAM function of Ethernet LSP, which I think is a good thing to do, it is not saying to use signaling protocol to do the OAM work. But anyway, it may be necessary to clarify the objective at the beginning of this draft.

 
Regards,

 
Dan

 

 
----- Original Message -----
From: Diego Caviglia
To: neil.2.harrison@bt.com ; Attila Takacs ; tnadeau@lucidvision.com
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 12:27 AM
Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

Hi Neil,

           Yes I totally agree with your analysis.



 
The is not going to redefine or reinvent the OAM that, as Thomas as pointed out, is done by IEEE, the ID just specify how to use a control plane mechanism (GMPLS) set-up at the same time data plane circuit and the related OAM.



 
Frankly specking I don$BCU(B see any layer violation here.



 
BR



 
Diego
From: neil.2.harrison@bt.com [mailto:neil.2.harrison@bt.com]
Sent: marted$B!&(B4 dicembre 2007 22.55
To: Attila Takacs; tnadeau@lucidvision.com; Diego Caviglia
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt



 
I'm puzzled.  I read the draft and thought it was excellent.  It is addressing an important operational issue, ie a critical operational OAM requirement is to ensure that whatever mechanism (MP or CP) is used to set-up/tear-down a connection (so this only applies to co-cs or co-ps modes....the cl-ps mode does not have connections of course) is harmonised to the activation/deactivation of the OAM.....specifically a CV/CC flow.   If we don't ensure this then there will be obvious operational problems.  This is essentially what the draft is about.



 
Further, GMPLS is a generic OOB CP technique.....it is not a specific layer network technology per se (but it is specific in it's choice of signalling and routing components).  So one can apply a largely similar (GMPLS) CP technique to all co-cs mode technologies (whether they are partitioning a space, freq or time resource - see Note) and co-ps mode technologies (which only applies to partitioning a time resource - see Note) on the assumption that the technology is correctly architected in the DP for the mode considered.  It's pretty hard not to correctly architect the co-cs mode, but it's quite easy to incorrectly architect the co-ps mode, eg one can't violate the rules of a connection in the co-cs mode but one can in the co-ps mode.



 
Note - When we partition a time resource in regular time-slices we create a co-cs mode layer network.  When we partition a time resource in irregular time-slices we create a co-ps mode layer network.  More information on labelling and resource partitioning can be found in the work on unified modelling (of networks) in G.800.



 
regards, Neil

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Attila Takacs
Sent: 05 December 2007 02:03
To: Thomas Nadeau; Diego Caviglia
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

Hi Tom,

please see inline.

Best regards,

Attila
From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 2:19 AM
To: Diego Caviglia
Cc: Attila Takacs; ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com
Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt



 
On Dec 4, 2007, at 7:33 PM, Diego Caviglia wrote:
Hi Thomas,

                 My understanding of the ID was that RSVP-TE can be used to $BAQ(Biggyback$B!)(BCFM set-up, otherwise the scenario is: usage of RSVP-TE to set-up the LSP and NMS (meaning everything that is not control plane) to enable to CFM for the LSP.



 
As I understand it, the IEEE is working on set-up of CFM (and MEPs), as are some vendors I know. *)

This to me seems like the right way to do this.



 
IEEE specified CFM and MIBs to setup CFM.

Diego's summary is correct: one can use an NMS or a control plane to setup the data plane. In this case we propose to use GMPLS to setup the data plane: both forwarding + OAM.

From your comment I see that you$BCS(Be not happy with the fact the ID is so technology specific am I right? 

 

Precisely; its gluing CFM to RSVP-TE/GMPLS as a transport.

I do not see your point with gluing. What do you mean by "as transport"? GMPLS is just controlling OAM, CFM is run solely in the data plane.

 

 

If yes do you agree with the fact that could be useful in general to use the same signaling $BAT(Bession$B!)(Bto set-up the LSP and to enable the CFM?

 

No, I do not agree.  Again, if CFM is to be set-up e2e, let the IEEE define this. Leave GMPLS to CCAMP.

 

 

Sorry, I cannot follow.

 

 



 


 


 
--Tom



 




 
 Best Regards


Diego
From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Nadeau
Sent: marted$B!&(B4 dicembre 2007 11.30
To: Attila Takacs
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com
Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

On Dec 4, 2007, at 1:51 PM, Attila Takacs wrote:
Hi Thomas,

Thank you for the comments!

Please see answers inline.

Best regards,
Attila
From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 2:58 PM
To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Cc: Attila Takacs; balazs.gero@ericsson.com
Subject: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

After reading this draft, I have some questions/comments.

1) Overall, I am concerned that the definition of a new TLV and these procedures represent

what amounts to a laying violation and ask that the ADs take a look at this

approach closely. This is similar to the now-rejected approach that was proposed

in the l2vpn WG about munging CFM + PWs.  To my reading, this is essentially

the same thing. If you want to run CFM, run it natively over the ethernet interfaces and

have no regard for the underlying topology (GMPLS, PWs, etc...) otherwise you

will be creating a mess for implementations and interoperability.

The application of the draft is exactly for what you are calling out: when CFM is run natively over the Ethernet interfaces. The document focuses on GELS and Ethernet LSPs. That is, to establish CFM entities for GMPLS controlled Ethernet LSPs. Hence, I think there is no layer violation issue.

         This solution specifically only works for GMPLS ethernet LSPs, right? 

What do I do if I want to set up MPLS ethernet LSPs (i.e.: PWs) and do CFM over those? Oh,

that is a different solution, right?  Then what do I do if I want to run CFM over some new type of

ethernet LSP in the future? More protocol hacks?  The point is to use CFM over an ethernet interface

without the underlying layers knowing. This is good networking architecture design, that simplifies

implementations and makes them more robust, as well as makes using them operationally much

easier.

2) The introductory sections in this draft give a lot of discussion about fast fault detection. I

am puzzled by this given that GMPLS networks tend to run over quickly self-healing

optical infrastructures. Is it therefore truly necessary to motivate this work by

requiring fast CFMs?

It is right that frequent CCMs are not required if the layers below Ethernet handle protection. However, the ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs where Ethernet is not just a single hop above a transport LSP. In this case Ethernet layer (for clarity GELS) may provide protection for Ethernet LSPs. In any case,  the whole point of the ID is to allow for the appropriate configuration of CFM for Ethernet LSPs with GMPLS.

3) This document does not cover E-LMI. Why not?

E-LMI is run over the MEF UNI. The ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs within a network.

For the purposes of this document, we only discuss Ethernet OAM

   [IEEE-CFM] aspects that are relevant for the connectivity monitoring

   of bidirectional point-to-point PBB-TE connections. 

4) Is this the right place to define this document or should this be done in GELS?

Well, GELS is done in CCAMP...this seems to be the right place.

5)   In section 2 you make the following statement:

2.  GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions

    To simplify the configuration of connectivity monitoring, when an

   Ethernet LSP is signalled the associated MEPs should be automatically

    established.  Further more, GMPLS signalling should be able to

  enable/disable connectivity monitoring of a particular Ethernet LSP.

To my point in #1 above, you should use the native CFM functionality over the ethernet interface and signal

those capabilities to the bridges at both ends using the IEEE CFM signaling procedures (when and if they

are created).  If you want to test the underlying GMPLS LSP(s), then you should use some

other mechanism defined for that layer such as the work stated in draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt

See the note to your point #1. There is no relation to the gmpls-LSP-ping draft.

         The point I am making is that perhaps it should.

         --Tom

 

-------------------------------------
Wataru Imajuku, Ph.D.@NTT Network Innovation Labs
TEL: +81-46-859-4315
FAX: +81-46-859-5541



Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. --0-913381410-1196953083=:79554-- From MurrayveteranChristian@annapolischorale.org Thu Dec 06 11:07:29 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0JG5-00012g-Op for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 11:07:29 -0500 Received: from [201.161.33.27] (helo=oemeb50b26c3af) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0JG5-0007uQ-Bc for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 11:07:29 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host03506603.annapolischorale.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id tNqiM6N444.460590.PQA.rqt.2738049244109 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2007 10:15:36 +0600 Message-ID: <024401c83823$47c0af00$088d980a@oemeb50b26c3af> From: "Harlan Contreras" To: , =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Cialis Soft=20 Tabs would help you to make better sex more often and to bring=20 unimaginable plesure to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue = and get=20 ready for action in 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of = men after=20 taking this medication were able to have perfect erection during = 24=20 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Cialis Soft Tabs gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_0240_01C83823.47C0AF00-- From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Thu Dec 06 11:46:25 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0Jrk-0002YV-VV for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 11:46:24 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0Jrk-00059b-Ei for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 11:46:24 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J0JUr-000Mhe-4D for ccamp-data@psg.com; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 16:22:45 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.7 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.2.3 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J0JTl-000MZg-60; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 16:22:12 +0000 Message-ID: <47582192.2090801@psg.com> Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 17:21:38 +0100 From: dimitri papadimitriou Reply-To: dpapadimitriou@psg.com User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adrian Farrel CC: Loa Andersson , ccamp Subject: Re: GELS: what happened alternatively what will happen References: <47575E4A.1040500@pi.se> <02dd01c837ec$79172a70$bd148182@your029b8cecfe> In-Reply-To: <02dd01c837ec$79172a70$bd148182@your029b8cecfe> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 5011df3e2a27abcc044eaa15befcaa87 adrian, all my suggestion is to focus the work on a step-wise basis we have a requirement doc. and an architecture doc. that can at this point in time be the main focus wrt workplan setup by the chairs (note there was no timeline associated when the email detailing the workplan was sent during summer time). they deserve to be commented and discussed on the list also (if that is still possible). in order to accelerate the process we might even propose certain deadlines/milestones for such commenting phases. concerning the strict protocol work, per Ethernet fwd'ing techno solution/spec is not the right approach imho. what we should do is work on the protocol mechanisms label distribution, resource reservation, source explicit routing, re-routing, etc. and the protocol elements label, tspecs, etc. This such that it becomes possible to articulate them wrt to the Ethernet fwd'ing technos and not define the Ethernet control elements on a per-techno basis. i am not saying this is necessarily possible for all Ethernet fwd'ing technos but it is the role of the former documents to determine how far we could progress with such approach. Reasons are: a) techno-specific elements have always been minimized in RFC 3945 arch. (technos do not impact the core GMPLS protocol arch. and processing, remember the early good days of an LSR associated to any kind of switching node) b) on a practical basis, does it make sense to have X GMPLS protocol specs (and so implementations) because there are X (foreseen) Ethernet fwd'ing techno that could fit ? c) how these different control elements are going to easily interoperate (wrt to the interoperability of the fwd'ing components) ? thanks, -d. Adrian Farrel wrote: > Hi Loa, > > Deborah and I want to move the Ethernet I-Ds forward (into the WG) as > quickly as possible, but we also need to organise our thoughts. > > Can you give us a couple of days to work out what we want to do with the > drafts, and in what order? > > In the mean time, a reminder to the whole WG that they should review and > comment on the list. Questions and issues are welcomed. Suggested text > is best. > > Thanks, > Adrian > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Loa Andersson" > To: "ccamp" > Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 2:28 AM > Subject: what happened alternatively what will happen > > >> Adrian and Deborah, >> >> yesterday a set of IDs on GMPLS control of Ethernet were presented; >> given that I remember correctly the author of the requirement draft >> said they think that the draft will be ready to become a working >> group document after next IETF meeting. >> >> The authors of the architecture draft for GMPLS controlled Ethernet >> and the protocol extensions for control of PBT-TE networks requested >> that their draft should be accepted as working group documents. >> >> No sense of the room were taken or "take it to the list" statement. >> >> What's the plan? >> >> /Loa >> -- >> Loa Andersson >> >> Principal Networking Architect >> Acreo AB phone: +46 8 632 77 14 >> Isafjordsgatan 22 mobile: +46 739 81 21 64 >> Kista, Sweden email: loa.andersson@acreo.se >> loa@pi.se >> >> This email was Anti Virus checked by Astaro Security Gateway. >> http://www.astaro.com >> >> >> > > > > > . > From NickolassaultEllison@xoops.org Thu Dec 06 11:59:08 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0K44-00068x-LV for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 11:59:08 -0500 Received: from [189.174.119.144] (helo=auxconta) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0K44-000440-9F for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 11:59:08 -0500 Received: from anode by xoops.org with SMTP id 1eVxxnlGQ4 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2007 09:58:54 +0700 From: "Riley Kent" To: Subject: Win $$$ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 2.1 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 7bac9cb154eb5790ae3b2913587a40de Travel no further than your screen and get your free $999 Huge progressive jackpots, slots, multi-hand, and single-hand blackjack. USA players too! Download and GO! Win $$$ instead of throwing it all away at other casinos. http://eurocasinoam.com/ From Greig.Mayuga@benchmarkdepo.com Thu Dec 06 14:12:41 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0M9J-0004JU-Co for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 14:12:41 -0500 Received: from 242-94.ip.ll.net ([209.131.242.94]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0M9I-0007WE-Rn for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 14:12:41 -0500 Received: from cd003400401-1 ([190.104.179.194] helo=cd003400401-1) by 242-94.ip.ll.net ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1WVixm-000ODG-ef for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 6 Dec 2007 13:11:14 -0600 Message-ID: <08FB97B7.CF5DEA5C@benchmarkdepo.com> Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 13:10:51 -0600 From: "Greig Mayuga" User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org Subject: rvengies Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 2.0 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 8ac499381112328dd60aea5b1ff596ea Regards ccamp-archive Buy viaaaaaaaagrrrrrraaaaaaa and start your new happier life in year 2008! http://grandmorning.com Greig Mayuga From abring@sany.com Thu Dec 06 14:29:26 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0MPW-0007oC-O3; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 14:29:26 -0500 Received: from wipll-50-46-static.01a.radom.pilicka.pl ([82.197.46.50]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0MPR-0000NO-3b; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 14:29:22 -0500 Received: from uservjyibuooht ([90.125.39.199]:22144 "HELO uservjyibuooht" smtp-auth: TLS-CIPHER: TLS-PEER-CN1: ) by 322ec552sany.com with ESMTP id 983272990E112 (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Dec 2007 20:29:19 +0100 Message-ID: <001801c83846$adddce80$067474d4@uservjyibuooht> From: Bridget Mcmullen To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org Subject: Have formulate Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 20:29:19 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0015_01C83846.ADDDCE80" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2720.2969 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2720.2963 X-Spam-Score: 2.0 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 9ed51c9d1356100bce94f1ae4ec616a9 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C83846.ADDDCE80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable message/or important documents to an individual. Electronic mail able to communicate the the idea to a broad audience but only in can still = be accessed in the traditional way, it can hang on your ------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C83846.ADDDCE80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

sensory inputs virtualized. I would probably be an excellent
<= /P>

Are you wanting a bi/gg er pe \nis?

As seen on TV

Ov \er 797,000 Men aro /und the world are already sat \isfied
Gain 4+ Inc /hes In Len /gth
Inc \rease Your Pe /nis Wid /th (Gir \th) By u/p-to 24%
100% Safe To Take, With NO Side Effe /cts
No Pumps! No Surgery! No Exercises!

elementary schools. By this integration of digital technology
------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C83846.ADDDCE80-- From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Thu Dec 06 14:39:51 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0MZb-0006oo-7C for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 14:39:51 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0MZX-0001IX-RV for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 14:39:49 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J0MBi-000I3Q-2n for ccamp-data@psg.com; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 19:15:10 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [217.32.164.151] (helo=smtp4.smtp.bt.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J0MBC-000Hzb-4E for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 19:14:54 +0000 Received: from E03MVB2-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net ([193.113.197.109]) by smtp4.smtp.bt.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 6 Dec 2007 19:14:43 +0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 19:14:17 -0000 Message-ID: <2ECAA42C79676B42AEBAC11229CA7D0C018D2366@E03MVB2-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net> In-Reply-To: <47570BE6.1020007@pi.se> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Thread-Index: Acg3fqLx+kew6ly0RDmqpYbVOHGE5AAvR4Eg From: To: , Cc: , , , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Dec 2007 19:14:43.0535 (UTC) FILETIME=[41EDB5F0:01C8383C] Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b612707e1a3f67df80ae89cdab1ba981 Loa, > With that it we should just go ahead and accept this as a > ccamp work item. If you are asking whether this should be adopted as a WG item then I am = in favour. regards, neil > -----Original Message----- > From: Loa Andersson [mailto:loa@pi.se]=20 > Sent: 05 December 2007 20:37 > To: Dan Li > Cc: Diego Caviglia; Harrison,N,Neil,DMN R; Attila Takacs;=20 > tnadeau@lucidvision.com; ccamp@ops.ietf.org > Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt >=20 >=20 > All, >=20 > I'm normally a bit careful with models "layer networks" that=20 > seems to be a rather cumbersome way of explaining the=20 > obvious; however in this case when it is used demonstrate=20 > that no layer violation is at hand I is inclined to accept=20 > that result. >=20 > I also agree with Dan that it seems to be a good idea to use=20 > RSVP-TE to provision OAM functionality is a good idea. >=20 > With that it we should just go ahead and accept this as a > ccamp work item. >=20 > /Loa >=20 > Dan Li wrote: > > MessageHi, > >=20 > > I think there is a misunderstanding with respect to the=20 > objective of=20 > > this draft. > >=20 > > As I read this draft, it describes how to extend the RSVP protocol >=20 > to support the configuration/enable the OAM function of Ethernet LSP, >=20 > which I think is a good thing to do, it is not saying to use signaling >=20 > protocol to do the OAM work. But anyway, it may be necessary=20 > to clarify >=20 > the objective at the beginning of this draft. > >=20 > > Regards, > >=20 > > Dan > >=20 > >=20 > > ----- Original Message -----=20 > > From: Diego Caviglia=20 > > To: neil.2.harrison@bt.com ; Attila Takacs ;=20 > tnadeau@lucidvision.com=20 > > Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org=20 > > Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 12:27 AM > > Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt > >=20 > >=20 > > Hi Neil, > >=20 > > Yes I totally agree with your analysis. > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > The is not going to redefine or reinvent the OAM that, as=20 > Thomas as=20 > > pointed out, is done by IEEE, the ID just specify how to=20 > use a control=20 > > plane mechanism (GMPLS) set-up at the same time data plane=20 > circuit and=20 > > the related OAM. > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > Frankly specking I don't see any layer violation here. > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > BR > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > Diego > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -------- > >=20 > > From: neil.2.harrison@bt.com [mailto:neil.2.harrison@bt.com]=20 > > Sent: marted=EC 4 dicembre 2007 22.55 > > To: Attila Takacs; tnadeau@lucidvision.com; Diego Caviglia > > Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org > > Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > I'm puzzled. I read the draft and thought it was=20 > excellent. It is addressing an important operational issue,=20 > ie a critical operational OAM requirement is to ensure that=20 > whatever mechanism (MP or CP) is used to set-up/tear-down a=20 > connection (so this only applies to co-cs or co-ps=20 > modes....the cl-ps mode does not have connections of course)=20 > is harmonised to the activation/deactivation of the=20 > OAM.....specifically a CV/CC flow. If we don't ensure this=20 > then there will be obvious operational problems. This is=20 > essentially what the draft is about. > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > Further, GMPLS is a generic OOB CP technique.....it is not a=20 > > specific layer network technology per se (but it is=20 > specific in it's=20 > > choice of signalling and routing components). So one can apply a=20 > > largely similar (GMPLS) CP technique to all co-cs mode technologies=20 > > (whether they are partitioning a space, freq or time resource - see=20 > > Note) and co-ps mode technologies (which only applies to=20 > partitioning=20 > > a time resource - see Note) on the assumption that the=20 > technology is=20 > > correctly architected in the DP for the mode considered. =20 > It's pretty=20 > > hard not to correctly architect the co-cs mode, but it's=20 > quite easy to=20 > > incorrectly architect the co-ps mode, eg one can't violate=20 > the rules=20 > > of a connection in the co-cs mode but one can in the co-ps mode. > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > Note - When we partition a time resource in regular=20 > time-slices we=20 > > create a co-cs mode layer network. When we partition a=20 > time resource=20 > > in irregular time-slices we create a co-ps mode layer=20 > network. More=20 > > information on labelling and resource partitioning can be=20 > found in the=20 > > work on unified modelling (of networks) in G.800. > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > regards, Neil > >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org=20 > [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Attila Takacs > > Sent: 05 December 2007 02:03 > > To: Thomas Nadeau; Diego Caviglia > > Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org > > Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt > >=20 > > Hi Tom, > >=20 > > please see inline. > >=20 > > Best regards, > >=20 > > Attila > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ---- > >=20 > > From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com]=20 > > Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 2:19 AM > > To: Diego Caviglia > > Cc: Attila Takacs; ccamp@ops.ietf.org;=20 > balazs.gero@ericsson.com > > Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > On Dec 4, 2007, at 7:33 PM, Diego Caviglia wrote: > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > > Hi Thomas, > >=20 > > My understanding of the ID was that=20 > RSVP-TE can=20 > > be used to 'piggyback' CFM set-up, otherwise the scenario=20 > is: usage of=20 > > RSVP-TE to set-up the LSP and NMS (meaning everything that is not=20 > > control plane) to enable to CFM for the LSP. > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > As I understand it, the IEEE is working on set-up of CFM (and=20 > > MEPs), as are some vendors I know. *) > >=20 > > This to me seems like the right way to do this. > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > IEEE specified CFM and MIBs to setup CFM. > >=20 > > Diego's summary is correct: one can use an NMS or a=20 > control plane=20 > > to setup the data plane. In this case we propose to use=20 > GMPLS to setup=20 > > the data plane: both forwarding + OAM. > >=20 > > From your comment I see that you're not happy with the fact=20 > > the ID is so technology specific am I right? > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > Precisely; its gluing CFM to RSVP-TE/GMPLS as a transport. > >=20 > > I do not see your point with gluing. What do you mean by "as=20 > > transport"? GMPLS is just controlling OAM, CFM is run solely in the=20 > > data plane. > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > If yes do you agree with the fact that could be useful in=20 > > general to use the same signaling 'session' to set-up the=20 > LSP and to=20 > > enable the CFM? > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > No, I do not agree. Again, if CFM is to be set-up=20 > e2e, let the=20 > > IEEE define this. Leave GMPLS to CCAMP. > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > Sorry, I cannot follow. > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > --Tom > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > > Best Regards > >=20 > >=20 > > Diego > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ---- > >=20 > > From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org=20 > [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Nadeau > > Sent: marted=EC 4 dicembre 2007 11.30 > > To: Attila Takacs > > Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com > > Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt > >=20 > > On Dec 4, 2007, at 1:51 PM, Attila Takacs wrote: > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > > Hi Thomas, > >=20 > > Thank you for the comments! > >=20 > > Please see answers inline. > >=20 > > Best regards, > > Attila > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > >=20 > > From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com]=20 > > Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 2:58 PM > > To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org > > Cc: Attila Takacs; balazs.gero@ericsson.com > > Subject: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt > >=20 > > After reading this draft, I have some questions/comments. > >=20 > > 1) Overall, I am concerned that the definition of a new TLV=20 > > and these procedures represent > >=20 > > what amounts to a laying violation and ask that the=20 > ADs take a=20 > > look at this > >=20 > > approach closely. This is similar to the=20 > now-rejected approach=20 > > that was proposed > >=20 > > in the l2vpn WG about munging CFM + PWs. To my=20 > reading, this=20 > > is essentially > >=20 > > the same thing. If you want to run CFM, run it=20 > natively over=20 > > the ethernet interfaces and > >=20 > > have no regard for the underlying topology (GMPLS, PWs,=20 > > etc...) otherwise you > >=20 > > will be creating a mess for implementations and=20 > > interoperability. > >=20 > > The application of the draft is exactly for what you=20 > are calling=20 > > out: when CFM is run natively over the Ethernet interfaces. The=20 > > document focuses on GELS and Ethernet LSPs. That is, to=20 > establish CFM=20 > > entities for GMPLS controlled Ethernet LSPs. Hence, I think=20 > there is=20 > > no layer violation issue. > >=20 > > This solution specifically only works for GMPLS=20 > > ethernet LSPs, right? > >=20 > > What do I do if I want to set up MPLS ethernet LSPs=20 > (i.e.: PWs)=20 > > and do CFM over those? Oh, > >=20 > > that is a different solution, right? Then what do I do if I=20 > > want to run CFM over some new type of > >=20 > > ethernet LSP in the future? More protocol hacks? The=20 > point is=20 > > to use CFM over an ethernet interface > >=20 > > without the underlying layers knowing. This is good=20 > networking=20 > > architecture design, that simplifies > >=20 > > implementations and makes them more robust, as well as makes=20 > > using them operationally much > >=20 > > easier. > >=20 > > 2) The introductory sections in this draft give a lot of=20 > > discussion about fast fault detection. I > >=20 > > am puzzled by this given that GMPLS networks tend to run=20 > > over quickly self-healing > >=20 > > optical infrastructures. Is it therefore truly=20 > necessary to=20 > > motivate this work by > >=20 > > requiring fast CFMs? > >=20 > > It is right that frequent CCMs are not required if=20 > the layers=20 > > below Ethernet handle protection. However, the ID focuses=20 > on Ethernet=20 > > LSPs where Ethernet is not just a single hop above a=20 > transport LSP. In=20 > > this case Ethernet layer (for clarity GELS) may provide=20 > protection for=20 > > Ethernet LSPs. In any case, the whole point of the ID is=20 > to allow for=20 > > the appropriate configuration of CFM for Ethernet LSPs with GMPLS. > >=20 > > 3) This document does not cover E-LMI. Why not? > >=20 > > E-LMI is run over the MEF UNI. The ID focuses on=20 > Ethernet LSPs=20 > > within a network. > >=20 > > For the purposes of this document, we only=20 > discuss Ethernet=20 > > OAM > >=20 > > [IEEE-CFM] aspects that are relevant for the=20 > connectivity=20 > > monitoring > >=20 > > of bidirectional point-to-point PBB-TE connections. > >=20 > > 4) Is this the right place to define this=20 > document or should=20 > > this be done in GELS? > >=20 > > Well, GELS is done in CCAMP...this seems to be the right=20 > > place. > >=20 > > 5) In section 2 you make the following statement: > >=20 > > 2. GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions > >=20 > > To simplify the configuration of connectivity=20 > > monitoring, when an > >=20 > > Ethernet LSP is signalled the associated MEPs=20 > should be=20 > > automatically > >=20 > > established. Further more, GMPLS signalling=20 > should be=20 > > able to > >=20 > > enable/disable connectivity monitoring of a particular=20 > > Ethernet LSP. > >=20 > > To my point in #1 above, you should use the native CFM=20 > > functionality over the ethernet interface and signal > >=20 > > those capabilities to the bridges at both ends using the=20 > > IEEE CFM signaling procedures (when and if they > >=20 > > are created). If you want to test the underlying GMPLS=20 > > LSP(s), then you should use some > >=20 > > other mechanism defined for that layer such as the work=20 > > stated in draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt > >=20 > > See the note to your point #1. There is no relation to the=20 > > gmpls-LSP-ping draft. > >=20 > > The point I am making is that perhaps it should. > >=20 > > --Tom > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 >=20 >=20 > --=20 > Loa Andersson >=20 > Principal Networking Architect > Acreo AB phone: +46 8 632 77 14 > Isafjordsgatan 22 mobile: +46 739 81 21 64 > Kista, Sweden email: loa.andersson@acreo.se > loa@pi.se >=20 > This email was Anti Virus checked by Astaro Security Gateway.=20 http://www.astaro.com From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Thu Dec 06 14:49:53 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0MjJ-0001ZB-Dw for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 14:49:53 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0MjI-0001hf-0Q for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 14:49:53 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J0MKA-000IyG-2J for ccamp-data@psg.com; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 19:23:54 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [80.86.78.228] (helo=fw.testbed.se) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J0MJe-000Iqy-4Y for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 19:23:38 +0000 Received: from MailerDaemon by fw.testbed.se with local-bsmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1J0MJb-0007T8-MT for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 20:23:19 +0100 Received: from [130.129.86.87] (port=3873) by fw.testbed.se with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1J0MJY-0007Si-I9; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 20:23:17 +0100 / CTCH-RefIDstr=0001.0A0B0201.47584B7C.0263,ss=1,fgs=0 Message-ID: <47584C19.9020204@pi.se> Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 20:23:05 +0100 From: Loa Andersson Organization: Acreo AB User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: neil.2.harrison@bt.com CC: danli@huawei.com, diego.caviglia@ericsson.com, Attila.Takacs@ericsson.com, tnadeau@lucidvision.com, ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt References: <2ECAA42C79676B42AEBAC11229CA7D0C018D2366@E03MVB2-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net> In-Reply-To: <2ECAA42C79676B42AEBAC11229CA7D0C018D2366@E03MVB2-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A0B0201.47584B7C.0263,ss=1,fgs=0 X-cff-SpamScore: 0(/) X-cff-SpamReport: ----- ----- Message is unknown to the spam scanner. X-cff-LastScanner: footer Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8f3b9db08b8c0fe2301a77f547096e31 yes - that was what I asked :) /Loa neil.2.harrison@bt.com wrote: > Loa, >> With that it we should just go ahead and accept this as a >> ccamp work item. > If you are asking whether this should be adopted as a WG item then I am in favour. > > regards, neil > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Loa Andersson [mailto:loa@pi.se] >> Sent: 05 December 2007 20:37 >> To: Dan Li >> Cc: Diego Caviglia; Harrison,N,Neil,DMN R; Attila Takacs; >> tnadeau@lucidvision.com; ccamp@ops.ietf.org >> Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt >> >> >> All, >> >> I'm normally a bit careful with models "layer networks" that >> seems to be a rather cumbersome way of explaining the >> obvious; however in this case when it is used demonstrate >> that no layer violation is at hand I is inclined to accept >> that result. >> >> I also agree with Dan that it seems to be a good idea to use >> RSVP-TE to provision OAM functionality is a good idea. >> >> With that it we should just go ahead and accept this as a >> ccamp work item. >> >> /Loa >> >> Dan Li wrote: >>> MessageHi, >>> >>> I think there is a misunderstanding with respect to the >> objective of >>> this draft. >>> >>> As I read this draft, it describes how to extend the RSVP protocol >> to support the configuration/enable the OAM function of Ethernet LSP, >> >> which I think is a good thing to do, it is not saying to use signaling >> >> protocol to do the OAM work. But anyway, it may be necessary >> to clarify >> >> the objective at the beginning of this draft. >>> Regards, >>> >>> Dan >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: Diego Caviglia >>> To: neil.2.harrison@bt.com ; Attila Takacs ; >> tnadeau@lucidvision.com >>> Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org >>> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 12:27 AM >>> Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt >>> >>> >>> Hi Neil, >>> >>> Yes I totally agree with your analysis. >>> >>> >>> >>> The is not going to redefine or reinvent the OAM that, as >> Thomas as >>> pointed out, is done by IEEE, the ID just specify how to >> use a control >>> plane mechanism (GMPLS) set-up at the same time data plane >> circuit and >>> the related OAM. >>> >>> >>> >>> Frankly specking I don't see any layer violation here. >>> >>> >>> >>> BR >>> >>> >>> >>> Diego >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> -------- >>> >>> From: neil.2.harrison@bt.com [mailto:neil.2.harrison@bt.com] >>> Sent: martedì 4 dicembre 2007 22.55 >>> To: Attila Takacs; tnadeau@lucidvision.com; Diego Caviglia >>> Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org >>> Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt >>> >>> >>> >>> I'm puzzled. I read the draft and thought it was >> excellent. It is addressing an important operational issue, >> ie a critical operational OAM requirement is to ensure that >> whatever mechanism (MP or CP) is used to set-up/tear-down a >> connection (so this only applies to co-cs or co-ps >> modes....the cl-ps mode does not have connections of course) >> is harmonised to the activation/deactivation of the >> OAM.....specifically a CV/CC flow. If we don't ensure this >> then there will be obvious operational problems. This is >> essentially what the draft is about. >>> >>> >>> Further, GMPLS is a generic OOB CP technique.....it is not a >>> specific layer network technology per se (but it is >> specific in it's >>> choice of signalling and routing components). So one can apply a >>> largely similar (GMPLS) CP technique to all co-cs mode technologies >>> (whether they are partitioning a space, freq or time resource - see >>> Note) and co-ps mode technologies (which only applies to >> partitioning >>> a time resource - see Note) on the assumption that the >> technology is >>> correctly architected in the DP for the mode considered. >> It's pretty >>> hard not to correctly architect the co-cs mode, but it's >> quite easy to >>> incorrectly architect the co-ps mode, eg one can't violate >> the rules >>> of a connection in the co-cs mode but one can in the co-ps mode. >>> >>> >>> >>> Note - When we partition a time resource in regular >> time-slices we >>> create a co-cs mode layer network. When we partition a >> time resource >>> in irregular time-slices we create a co-ps mode layer >> network. More >>> information on labelling and resource partitioning can be >> found in the >>> work on unified modelling (of networks) in G.800. >>> >>> >>> >>> regards, Neil >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org >> [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Attila Takacs >>> Sent: 05 December 2007 02:03 >>> To: Thomas Nadeau; Diego Caviglia >>> Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org >>> Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt >>> >>> Hi Tom, >>> >>> please see inline. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Attila >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ---- >>> >>> From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com] >>> Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 2:19 AM >>> To: Diego Caviglia >>> Cc: Attila Takacs; ccamp@ops.ietf.org; >> balazs.gero@ericsson.com >>> Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt >>> >>> >>> >>> On Dec 4, 2007, at 7:33 PM, Diego Caviglia wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi Thomas, >>> >>> My understanding of the ID was that >> RSVP-TE can >>> be used to 'piggyback' CFM set-up, otherwise the scenario >> is: usage of >>> RSVP-TE to set-up the LSP and NMS (meaning everything that is not >>> control plane) to enable to CFM for the LSP. >>> >>> >>> >>> As I understand it, the IEEE is working on set-up of CFM (and >>> MEPs), as are some vendors I know. *) >>> >>> This to me seems like the right way to do this. >>> >>> >>> >>> IEEE specified CFM and MIBs to setup CFM. >>> >>> Diego's summary is correct: one can use an NMS or a >> control plane >>> to setup the data plane. In this case we propose to use >> GMPLS to setup >>> the data plane: both forwarding + OAM. >>> >>> From your comment I see that you're not happy with the fact >>> the ID is so technology specific am I right? >>> >>> >>> >>> Precisely; its gluing CFM to RSVP-TE/GMPLS as a transport. >>> >>> I do not see your point with gluing. What do you mean by "as >>> transport"? GMPLS is just controlling OAM, CFM is run solely in the >>> data plane. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> If yes do you agree with the fact that could be useful in >>> general to use the same signaling 'session' to set-up the >> LSP and to >>> enable the CFM? >>> >>> >>> >>> No, I do not agree. Again, if CFM is to be set-up >> e2e, let the >>> IEEE define this. Leave GMPLS to CCAMP. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Sorry, I cannot follow. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> --Tom >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Best Regards >>> >>> >>> Diego >>> >>> >>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ---- >>> >>> From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org >> [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Nadeau >>> Sent: martedì 4 dicembre 2007 11.30 >>> To: Attila Takacs >>> Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com >>> Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt >>> >>> On Dec 4, 2007, at 1:51 PM, Attila Takacs wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi Thomas, >>> >>> Thank you for the comments! >>> >>> Please see answers inline. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Attila >>> >>> >>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> -- >>> >>> From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com] >>> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 2:58 PM >>> To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org >>> Cc: Attila Takacs; balazs.gero@ericsson.com >>> Subject: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt >>> >>> After reading this draft, I have some questions/comments. >>> >>> 1) Overall, I am concerned that the definition of a new TLV >>> and these procedures represent >>> >>> what amounts to a laying violation and ask that the >> ADs take a >>> look at this >>> >>> approach closely. This is similar to the >> now-rejected approach >>> that was proposed >>> >>> in the l2vpn WG about munging CFM + PWs. To my >> reading, this >>> is essentially >>> >>> the same thing. If you want to run CFM, run it >> natively over >>> the ethernet interfaces and >>> >>> have no regard for the underlying topology (GMPLS, PWs, >>> etc...) otherwise you >>> >>> will be creating a mess for implementations and >>> interoperability. >>> >>> The application of the draft is exactly for what you >> are calling >>> out: when CFM is run natively over the Ethernet interfaces. The >>> document focuses on GELS and Ethernet LSPs. That is, to >> establish CFM >>> entities for GMPLS controlled Ethernet LSPs. Hence, I think >> there is >>> no layer violation issue. >>> >>> This solution specifically only works for GMPLS >>> ethernet LSPs, right? >>> >>> What do I do if I want to set up MPLS ethernet LSPs >> (i.e.: PWs) >>> and do CFM over those? Oh, >>> >>> that is a different solution, right? Then what do I do if I >>> want to run CFM over some new type of >>> >>> ethernet LSP in the future? More protocol hacks? The >> point is >>> to use CFM over an ethernet interface >>> >>> without the underlying layers knowing. This is good >> networking >>> architecture design, that simplifies >>> >>> implementations and makes them more robust, as well as makes >>> using them operationally much >>> >>> easier. >>> >>> 2) The introductory sections in this draft give a lot of >>> discussion about fast fault detection. I >>> >>> am puzzled by this given that GMPLS networks tend to run >>> over quickly self-healing >>> >>> optical infrastructures. Is it therefore truly >> necessary to >>> motivate this work by >>> >>> requiring fast CFMs? >>> >>> It is right that frequent CCMs are not required if >> the layers >>> below Ethernet handle protection. However, the ID focuses >> on Ethernet >>> LSPs where Ethernet is not just a single hop above a >> transport LSP. In >>> this case Ethernet layer (for clarity GELS) may provide >> protection for >>> Ethernet LSPs. In any case, the whole point of the ID is >> to allow for >>> the appropriate configuration of CFM for Ethernet LSPs with GMPLS. >>> >>> 3) This document does not cover E-LMI. Why not? >>> >>> E-LMI is run over the MEF UNI. The ID focuses on >> Ethernet LSPs >>> within a network. >>> >>> For the purposes of this document, we only >> discuss Ethernet >>> OAM >>> >>> [IEEE-CFM] aspects that are relevant for the >> connectivity >>> monitoring >>> >>> of bidirectional point-to-point PBB-TE connections. >>> >>> 4) Is this the right place to define this >> document or should >>> this be done in GELS? >>> >>> Well, GELS is done in CCAMP...this seems to be the right >>> place. >>> >>> 5) In section 2 you make the following statement: >>> >>> 2. GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions >>> >>> To simplify the configuration of connectivity >>> monitoring, when an >>> >>> Ethernet LSP is signalled the associated MEPs >> should be >>> automatically >>> >>> established. Further more, GMPLS signalling >> should be >>> able to >>> >>> enable/disable connectivity monitoring of a particular >>> Ethernet LSP. >>> >>> To my point in #1 above, you should use the native CFM >>> functionality over the ethernet interface and signal >>> >>> those capabilities to the bridges at both ends using the >>> IEEE CFM signaling procedures (when and if they >>> >>> are created). If you want to test the underlying GMPLS >>> LSP(s), then you should use some >>> >>> other mechanism defined for that layer such as the work >>> stated in draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt >>> >>> See the note to your point #1. There is no relation to the >>> gmpls-LSP-ping draft. >>> >>> The point I am making is that perhaps it should. >>> >>> --Tom >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Loa Andersson >> >> Principal Networking Architect >> Acreo AB phone: +46 8 632 77 14 >> Isafjordsgatan 22 mobile: +46 739 81 21 64 >> Kista, Sweden email: loa.andersson@acreo.se >> loa@pi.se >> >> This email was Anti Virus checked by Astaro Security Gateway. > http://www.astaro.com > > > -- Loa Andersson Principal Networking Architect Acreo AB phone: +46 8 632 77 14 Isafjordsgatan 22 mobile: +46 739 81 21 64 Kista, Sweden email: loa.andersson@acreo.se loa@pi.se This email was Anti Virus checked by Astaro Security Gateway. http://www.astaro.com From bloyed@aavn.ch Thu Dec 06 19:06:28 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0Qjc-0001rG-Bb for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 19:06:28 -0500 Received: from host61-86-dynamic.1-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it ([79.1.86.61]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0Qjb-0005VL-Is for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 19:06:27 -0500 Received: from STUDIO ([162.186.11.38]:21546 "EHLO STUDIO" smtp-auth: TLS-CIPHER: TLS-PEER-CN1: ) by host114-84-dynamic.9-87-r.retail.telecomitalia.it with ESMTP id S22XAREHQYFTSPAP (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Dec 2007 01:06:48 +0100 Message-ID: <000601c83865$022fd280$72540957@STUDIO> From: "Kurtis bloyed" To: Subject: male Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 01:06:25 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0005_01C8386D.63F43A80" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b19722fc8d3865b147c75ae2495625f2 ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C8386D.63F43A80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Good day ccamp-archive Retrieve your might back, and have a marvellous night with your girl! http://carrycolumn.com Kurtis bloyed ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C8386D.63F43A80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Good day ccamp-archive
Retrieve your might back, and have a = marvellous night=20 with your girl!
http://carrycolumn.com
Kurtis bloyed
------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C8386D.63F43A80-- From OmarindiumBaldwin@cbsnews.com Fri Dec 07 01:41:22 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0Wtl-000669-W0 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 01:41:22 -0500 Received: from cpe-66-66-153-37.rochester.res.rr.com ([66.66.153.37] helo=d26bsz61.rochester.rr.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0Wtl-0002VG-MF for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 01:41:21 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host21239677.cbsnews.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id V1CuEDid50.842776.LDn.dQ6.8908494544859 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2007 01:41:18 +0500 Message-ID: <113b401c8389c$2fe32c90$25994242@D26BSZ61> From: "Orlando Benson" To: , =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Viagra would=20 help you to make better sex more often and to bring unimaginable = plesure=20 to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for = action in=20 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking = this=20 medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Viagra gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_113B0_01C8389C.2FE32C90-- From Hsiehmmrp@rabid.ndo.co.uk Fri Dec 07 01:54:23 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0X6N-00006U-8C for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 01:54:23 -0500 Received: from [82.193.210.224] (helo=[82.193.210.224]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0X6M-0002ys-Ml for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 01:54:22 -0500 Received: from kanta ([164.102.185.88] helo=kanta) by [82.193.210.224] ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1FZOkX-000MVR-Wc for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 7 Dec 2007 07:54:53 +0100 Message-ID: <000d01c8389d$fe6b6090$e0d2c152@kanta> From: "elissa Hsieh" To: Subject: esoakol Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 07:54:20 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0004_01C838A6.602FC890" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 071206-0, 06.12.2007), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 97adf591118a232206bdb5a27b217034 ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C838A6.602FC890 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable regards ccamp-archive your expected xmas gift will be your increased PE! http://exellentquality.com elissa Hsieh ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C838A6.602FC890 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
regards ccamp-archive
your expected xmas gift will be your increased = PE!
http://exellentquality.com=
elissa Hsieh
------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C838A6.602FC890-- From TyremnantFarrell@deccanherald.com Fri Dec 07 04:26:59 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0ZU3-0007HY-3m for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 04:26:59 -0500 Received: from pool-72-86-8-204.lyncva.east.verizon.net ([72.86.8.204] helo=main.myhome.westell.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0ZU2-0001GL-RF for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 04:26:59 -0500 Received: from mendelssohn by deccanherald.com with SMTP id 7m0rcqvApZ for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2007 04:26:50 +0500 From: "Shelby Lowery" To: , Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0bLA-0005sj-CS; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 06:25:56 -0500 Received: from ppp-124.120.201.205.revip2.asianet.co.th ([124.120.201.205] helo=jjtjsgqk) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0bL9-00067o-RX; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 06:25:56 -0500 To: From: "Sanora Terrie" Subject: #1 PharmacyOnNet sells Phentermin, Ambien, Codeine, ValiuXanassss.... slmaf Message-ID: <600p42919.65692m52638596@ey.com> Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 18:23:22 +0700 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 3.7 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 7d33c50f3756db14428398e2bdedd581 We have every hard meds you need Phetermin Codeine Ambien Viagr Cia|i Xana Valiu & all Limited Offer, Order today http://kjgt.pemajor.com http://kfbsu.pemajor.com From AngieburrowThomason@yesterdayusa.com Fri Dec 07 10:09:46 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0epm-0007Uv-RK for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 10:09:46 -0500 Received: from 22-43-223-201.adsl.terra.cl ([201.223.43.22] helo=desktop7) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0epm-0000VC-6X for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 10:09:46 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host59877459.yesterdayusa.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id 3SfVlHM602.751588.7WG.Kk4.4303592193213 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2007 12:09:41 +0400 Message-ID: <70f401c838e3$3734d4c0$0901a8c0@desktop7> From: "Madeline Richter" To: , =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Viagra would=20 help you to make better sex more often and to bring unimaginable = plesure=20 to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for = action in=20 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking = this=20 medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Viagra gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_70F0_01C838E3.3734D4C0-- From MarissathymeHaskins@minddisorders.com Fri Dec 07 11:55:36 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0gUC-00042P-F9 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 11:55:36 -0500 Received: from [124.157.208.156] (helo=win07v1) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0gUB-0000BP-Sx for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 11:55:36 -0500 Received: from lability by minddisorders.com with SMTP id iLRCdJvDj4 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2007 23:55:48 +1200 From: "Kelsey Gee" To: , Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0hmZ-00026g-NB for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 13:18:39 -0500 Received: from [190.10.179.87] (helo=localhost) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0hmZ-0006qN-7J for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 13:18:39 -0500 Message-ID: <000001c838fc$3c9e9900$0100007f@localhost> From: "Ritalynne Davis" To: Subject: Adobe Font Folio 11 MAC/XP/Vista for 189, Retails @ 2599 (You save 2409) Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 13:27:48 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 12.0.4210 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-Spam-Score: 4.6 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 1ac7cc0a4cd376402b85bc1961a86ac2 realize voice 3.51 - 29 microsoft onenote pro 2003 - 29 alias motionbuilder 6.0 - 49 sonic scenarist 3.0 - 49 adobe illustrator cs3 - 69 abbyy finereader 8.0 professional multilanguage - 49 autodesk architectural studio 3.0 - 39 adobe audition 2.0 - 49 avid xpress pro 5.7 - 119 coreldraw graphics suite x3 - 59 sony sound forge 9.0 - 49 acronis true image enterprise server 9.1.3666 - 79 http://getsoftnow.cn From Lyerlyyodpe@cyber49er.com Fri Dec 07 13:47:39 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0iEd-0001Ne-Og for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 13:47:39 -0500 Received: from dxb-b126027.alshamil.net.ae ([86.98.43.119] helo=[38.99.101.130]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0iEc-0000vN-RG for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 13:47:39 -0500 Received: by 10.239.113.123 with SMTP id ujoGiJBRBndLr; Fri, 7 Dec 2007 22:53:44 +0400 (GMT) Received: by 192.168.83.135 with SMTP id MylYLoQWArkhCO.8992559141221; Fri, 7 Dec 2007 22:53:42 +0400 (GMT) Message-ID: <000b01c83902$7ac3f6c0$82656326@jalia> From: "toni Lyerly" To: Subject: nagustez Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 22:53:39 +0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0003_01C83924.01D596C0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Spam-Score: 2.0 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464 ------=_NextPart_000_0003_01C83924.01D596C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Good day ccamp-archive Bring more happiness into your holiday mood http://yesipharm.com toni Lyerly ------=_NextPart_000_0003_01C83924.01D596C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Good day ccamp-archive
Bring more happiness into your holiday = mood
http://yesipharm.com
toni Lyerly
------=_NextPart_000_0003_01C83924.01D596C0-- From TaniaprothonotaryGoodrich@everything2.com Fri Dec 07 13:48:39 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0iFb-0007fH-FS for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 13:48:39 -0500 Received: from d90-134-22-25.cust.tele2.de ([90.134.22.25] helo=homepc.lan) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0iFa-0000zx-Qv for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 13:48:39 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host48590736.everything2.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id BpUclYD190.816244.TfO.wb3.1620681801925 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2007 19:49:27 -0100 Message-ID: <1821701c83901$e9d3c6e0$0101a8c0@homepc> From: "Tania Abel" To: , =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Viagra would=20 help you to make better sex more often and to bring unimaginable = plesure=20 to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for = action in=20 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking = this=20 medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Viagra gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_18213_01C83901.E9D3C6E0-- From TerrycompassRoberts@launchmagonline.com Fri Dec 07 16:03:26 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0kM2-00005c-Bj for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 16:03:26 -0500 Received: from [201.230.109.138] (helo=piv) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0kM2-00025q-0q for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 16:03:26 -0500 Received: from ornately by launchmagonline.com with SMTP id 5au5t0f9A6 for ; Fri, 7 Dec 2007 16:03:20 +0500 From: "Douglas Murphy" To: Subject: Win $$$ instead of throwing it all away at other casinos. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 2.1 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 7bac9cb154eb5790ae3b2913587a40de Free money free fun. How about the best service around? Free money free fun. Your own privater Vegas! http://eurocasinoak.com/ From mizher@campuschristianity.com Fri Dec 07 18:49:41 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0mwv-0008Kk-NN for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 18:49:41 -0500 Received: from mx.costa-calero.com ([212.64.166.234]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0mwu-0007ZM-PO for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 18:49:41 -0500 Received: from desktop ([173.133.191.151]:17226 "EHLO desktop" smtp-auth: TLS-CIPHER: TLS-PEER-CN1: ) by [212.64.166.234] with ESMTP id S22TMBJXKVASLCFF (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Dec 2007 23:47:59 -0000 Message-ID: <000601c8392b$875b3e60$eaa640d4@desktop> From: "Amol mizher" To: Subject: everming Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 23:47:29 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0006_01C8392B.875B3E60" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464 ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C8392B.875B3E60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Compliments ccamp-archive hardship with your intimate relations? http://comfortpharm.com Amol mizher ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C8392B.875B3E60 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Compliments ccamp-archive
hardship with your intimate = relations?
http://comfortpharm.com
Amol mizher
------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C8392B.875B3E60-- From CarrollplaygroundPaul@collegeboard.com Fri Dec 07 19:07:48 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0nES-0007PI-PI for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 19:07:48 -0500 Received: from host86-149-136-5.range86-149.btcentralplus.com ([86.149.136.5] helo=keirascomputer.home) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0nES-0000LZ-Cr for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 19:07:48 -0500 Received: from konrad by collegeboard.com with SMTP id UUPO2FJ3GM for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2007 00:07:37 +0000 From: "Lionel Floyd" To: , Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0rV9-0003n2-6R for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 23:41:19 -0500 Received: from [221.125.195.33] (helo=lama70f4b63990.hgcbroadband.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0rV4-0006Qx-3t for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 23:41:19 -0500 Received: from occultate by albanyenterprise.com with SMTP id mWQc0sxoLj for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2007 12:41:00 -0800 From: "Tod Dale" To: Cc: , Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0roJ-0004Cb-Co for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 00:01:07 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0roH-00067U-Q7 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 00:01:07 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J0re5-000H9h-Ng for ccamp-data@psg.com; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 04:50:33 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-202.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE, USER_IN_ALL_SPAM_TO,USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [156.154.16.138] (helo=ns1.neustar.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J0rdb-000H6A-3g for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 04:50:18 +0000 Received: from stiedprstage1.ietf.org (stiedprstage1.va.neustar.com [10.31.47.10]) by ns1.neustar.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45ECA26E78; Sat, 8 Dec 2007 04:50:02 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ietf by stiedprstage1.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1J0rda-0001XA-6S; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 23:50:02 -0500 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D Action:draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-04.txt Message-Id: Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 23:50:02 -0500 Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 6e922792024732fb1bb6f346e63517e4 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Common Control and Measurement Plane Working Group of the IETF. Title : OSPFv2 Extensions for ASON Routing Author(s) : D. Papadimitriou, I. Property Filename : draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-04.txt Pages : 23 Date : 2007-12-07 The Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) suite of protocols has been defined to control different switching technologies as well as different applications. These include support for requesting TDM connections including SONET/SDH and Optical Transport Networks (OTNs). This document provides the extensions of the OSPFv2 Link State Routing Protocol to meet the routing requirements for an Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON) as defined by ITU-T. D.Papadimitriou - Expires June 2008 [page 1] draft-dimitri-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-04.txt A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-04.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-04.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-04.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2007-12-07234038.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-04.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-04.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2007-12-07234038.I-D\@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- From AllieprotegeTobin@slashdot.org Sat Dec 08 06:25:18 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0xo6-0004w8-Nv for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 06:25:18 -0500 Received: from pool-71-165-216-53.lsanca.dsl-w.verizon.net ([71.165.216.53] helo=keyfb734b2b955) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0xo6-0000Lv-8g for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 06:25:18 -0500 Received: from test by slashdot.org with SMTP id 2batl6arWA for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2007 03:21:08 +0800 From: "Ashlee Jorgensen" To: Subject: Your own privater Vegas! Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 3.2 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 7bac9cb154eb5790ae3b2913587a40de Get your bonus and walk the red carpet to winnings and fun. We have it all! We know how to treat our players - how about a $999 welcome bonmus when you join? We give out BONUSES to anyone who joins. http://eurocasinoak.com/ From Renan-blood@t4tiger.ndo.co.uk Sat Dec 08 07:39:31 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0yxu-0007HD-SL for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 07:39:31 -0500 Received: from 83-22-114.netrun.cytanet.com.cy ([83.168.22.114] helo=87-190-184.netrunf.cytanet.com.cy) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0yxt-0003xD-Vs for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 07:39:30 -0500 Received: from laptop ([182.174.149.199] helo=laptop) by 87-190-184.netrunf.cytanet.com.cy ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1dILZR-000NFY-hW for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 8 Dec 2007 14:39:47 +0200 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 14:39:32 +0200 From: "Renan blood" User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org Subject: sivuavaa Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8ac499381112328dd60aea5b1ff596ea Morning ccamp-archive longing for better se>. Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0zRB-0002WE-SX; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 08:09:45 -0500 Received: from c52-31.icpnet.pl ([62.21.52.31]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J0zRA-0007OS-U1; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 08:09:45 -0500 X-Originating-IP: 92.244.132.214 by smtp.62.21.52.31; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 08:09:39 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Barbara Fry" <16ng@ietf.org> Reply-To: "Barbara Fry" <16ng@ietf.org> To: 16ng@ietf.org Subject: Confirm ch0pard 0rder 96869 Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 08:09:39 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Spam-Score: 4.8 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 7aefe408d50e9c7c47615841cb314bed Hello, We have brand new model of r0lex submariner SS from 2008 for only $229. 15% off only in November. V1sit us n0w at: http://www.spoeiike.com/ From AaronstanchionGray@whyifailed.com Sat Dec 08 08:58:10 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J10C2-0001x5-CG for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 08:58:10 -0500 Received: from [69.55.251.135] (helo=utilisatae6c85.local) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J10C2-00006G-4D for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 08:58:10 -0500 Received: from throttle by whyifailed.com with SMTP id 38NkQswPHg for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2007 08:57:40 +0500 From: "Wayne Wood" To: Cc: , Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J10T4-0003ob-DQ for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 09:15:46 -0500 Received: from 125-25-168-211.adsl.totbb.net ([125.25.168.211] helo=com2.lan) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J10T3-0000VF-Pa for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 09:15:46 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host45942985.lizardpoint.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id un6H6O5v50.092311.EwU.TIP.6150721975689 for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2007 21:13:29 -0700 Message-ID: <5459a01c839a4$b6b84ad0$0301a8c0@COM2> From: "Curtis Sullivan" To: Subject: Your order approved Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 21:13:29 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_54596_01C839A4.B6B84AD0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d16ce744298aacf98517bc7c108bd198 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_54596_01C839A4.B6B84AD0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Even if you have no erection problems Viagra would help you to make = better sex more often and to bring unimaginable plesure to her. Just = disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for action in 30 = minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking this = medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours! Package Quantity Price in your local drugstore* Our price LearnMoreNow 10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49 30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50 60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02 90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40 180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46 When you are young and stressed up… When you are aged and never give up… Viagra gives you confidence in any chance, every time. ------=_NextPart_000_54596_01C839A4.B6B84AD0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Viagra would=20 help you to make better sex more often and to bring unimaginable = plesure=20 to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for = action in=20 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking = this=20 medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Viagra gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_54596_01C839A4.B6B84AD0-- From Jai542@auctiongifts.com Sat Dec 08 11:55:50 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J12xy-0007ra-RV for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 11:55:50 -0500 Received: from [86.61.180.23] (helo=[86.61.180.23]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J12xx-0004Uc-I2 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 11:55:50 -0500 Received: from gigabytegak8ne ([117.113.149.101]:27419 "EHLO gigabytegak8ne" smtp-auth: TLS-CIPHER: TLS-PEER-CN1: ) by [86.61.180.23] with ESMTP id S22LZYJWEZHYEEXT (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 Dec 2007 17:56:09 +0100 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 17:55:44 +0100 To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org From: "Jai Kriegel" Subject: votiniar Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 2.1 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 8ac499381112328dd60aea5b1ff596ea Good day ccamp-archive ciiiiaaa.lis for you and your family http://chartliquid.com Jai Kriegel From BenitowalrusKramer@evilmadscientist.com Sat Dec 08 12:52:07 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J13qR-0007P0-2e for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 12:52:07 -0500 Received: from 84.126.162.229.dyn.user.ono.com ([84.126.162.229] helo=vero) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J13qQ-0005tn-Me for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 12:52:06 -0500 Received: from goldstine by evilmadscientist.com with SMTP id wW3bjHSLLf for ; Sat, 8 Dec 2007 18:51:52 -0100 From: "Chuck Short" To: Subject: We pay you to play. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 3.7 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 7bac9cb154eb5790ae3b2913587a40de We pay you to play. Relax and have fun with poker, blackjack, roulette, progressive video slots at your own leisure from your couch. Come find out. Relax and have fun with poker, blackjack, roulette, progressive video slots at your own leisure from your couch. http://eurocasinoaj.com/ From Swinglefnff@cognitiveweb.org Sat Dec 08 14:01:51 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J14vv-00084Q-Ex for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 14:01:51 -0500 Received: from host183-6-dynamic.0-87-r.retail.telecomitalia.it ([87.0.6.183] helo=host170-247-dynamic.15-87-r.retail.telecomitalia.it) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J14vu-0007Ko-KH for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 14:01:51 -0500 Received: by 10.214.227.201 with SMTP id McPyuVGRvOHAe; Sat, 8 Dec 2007 20:02:05 +0100 (GMT) Received: by 192.168.92.167 with SMTP id uQQJpwzMKmwjQX.1150412527202; Sat, 8 Dec 2007 20:02:03 +0100 (GMT) Message-ID: <000701c839cc$cfe28660$aaf70f57@e2fbd> From: "emadoxx Swingle" To: Subject: julistae Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 20:02:00 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0008_01C839D5.31A6EE60" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Spam-Score: 4.8 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: e5ba305d0e64821bf3d8bc5d3bb07228 ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C839D5.31A6EE60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Regards ccamp-archive As seen in german p.or.n vi-a gra http://chartliquid.com emadoxx Swingle ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C839D5.31A6EE60 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Regards ccamp-archive
As seen in german p.or.n vi-a gra
http://chartliquid.com
emadoxx Swingle
------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C839D5.31A6EE60-- From rpgtrek@keir.net Sat Dec 08 20:18:15 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1AoB-0003NM-RW for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 20:18:15 -0500 Received: from athedsl-194156.home.otenet.gr ([85.74.78.10]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1Ao9-0003AR-Vx for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 20:18:15 -0500 Received: from ioannab5a14056 ([185.5.175.65]:19141 "HELO ioannab5a14056" smtp-auth: TLS-CIPHER: TLS-PEER-CN1: ) by a4e4a55keir.net with ESMTP id b2JGCOEN401156 (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Dec 2007 03:18:20 +0200 Message-ID: <001501c83a12$265f20d0$00669a9c@ioannab5a14056> From: module To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org Subject: And is organize Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 03:18:20 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0012_01C83A12.265F20D0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.1409 X-Spam-Score: 0.5 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 21c69d3cfc2dd19218717dbe1d974352 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0012_01C83A12.265F20D0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1250" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable medium, and did, but my friend, who is an Economics major, just the reluctant are coerced into dealing with the computer and its In additio= n to painting, photography or sculpture, media such as ------=_NextPart_000_0012_01C83A12.265F20D0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1250" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

how much you show people that there is no evidence to support the

Are you wanting a bi/gg er pe \nis?

As seen on TV

Ov \er 787,000 Men aro /und the world are already sat \isfied
Gain 3+ Inc /hes In Len /gth
Inc \rease Your Pe /nis Wid /th (Gir \th) By u/p-to 29%
100% Safe To Take, With NO Side Effe /cts
No Pumps! No Surgery! No Exercises!

get over the computer intimidation, which has caused some anxiety ------=_NextPart_000_0012_01C83A12.265F20D0-- From vqbveteran@helixmed.com Sat Dec 08 20:27:14 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1Aws-0005hh-G1 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 20:27:14 -0500 Received: from [62.139.83.229] (helo=helixmed.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1Awo-0000DI-Us for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 20:27:12 -0500 Received: from megaaa0fb84412 ([166.168.102.3]:19342 "HELO megaaa0fb84412" smtp-auth: TLS-CIPHER: TLS-PEER-CN1: ) by e5538b3ehelixmed.com with ESMTP id 724999183B53 (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Dec 2007 03:27:17 +0200 Message-ID: <001a01c83a13$661522f0$06a0c2fc@megaaa0fb84412> From: Diane O. Maurer To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org Subject: hmild Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 03:27:17 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0017_01C83A13.661522F0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2963 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 21c69d3cfc2dd19218717dbe1d974352 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0017_01C83A13.661522F0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1250" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable distinguishing between real life and fantasy . The bottom line vulnerability from what technology will offer. We could be 'phone. Later = that night, Benny cavorts dangerously on the ------=_NextPart_000_0017_01C83A13.661522F0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1250" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

great technological advancements and now we're at a threshold.

Are you wanting a bi/gg er pe \nis?

As seen on TV

Ov \er 734,000 Men aro /und the world are already sat \isfied
Gain 3+ Inc /hes In Len /gth
Inc \rease Your Pe /nis Wid /th (Gir \th) By u/p-to 27%
100% Safe To Take, With NO Side Effe /cts
No Pumps! No Surgery! No Exercises!

very intensely written novel. These text based virtual realities, ------=_NextPart_000_0017_01C83A13.661522F0-- From IratargetReeves@perfectionequipment.com Sun Dec 09 03:58:03 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1Hz9-0003Eq-MI for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 03:58:03 -0500 Received: from [201.116.23.147] (helo=familiarugmadf.cablecom.com.mx) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1Hz9-0001Ui-Co for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 03:58:03 -0500 Received: from score by perfectionequipment.com with SMTP id AHdcxCAwAb for ; Sun, 9 Dec 2007 02:57:14 +0500 From: "Preston Hubbard" To: , Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1KuL-000819-Ot for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 07:05:17 -0500 Received: from ppp-121-208.24-151.libero.it ([151.24.208.121]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1KuG-0003Gb-Vf for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 07:05:17 -0500 Received: by 10.113.236.24 with SMTP id FJHwTWxdAsepO; Sun, 9 Dec 2007 13:05:11 +0100 (GMT) Received: by 192.168.35.186 with SMTP id PClywBPzQdUFFP.9005022367231; Sun, 9 Dec 2007 13:05:09 +0100 (GMT) Message-ID: <000601c83a5b$bd1bf4a0$79d01897@acereec2e0702c> From: "felicia Hitzfeld" To: Subject: spijzigi Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 13:05:06 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0006_01C83A64.1EE05CA0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464 ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C83A64.1EE05CA0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Night ccamp-archive We wish you a merry x-mas and seksual vic.tories! http://carrycolumn.com felicia Hitzfeld ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C83A64.1EE05CA0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Night ccamp-archive
We wish you a merry x-mas and seksual=20 vic.tories!
http://carrycolumn.com
felicia Hitzfeld
------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C83A64.1EE05CA0-- From WilburnassaiCase@reallynatural.com Sun Dec 09 07:47:36 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1LZI-0003lv-SJ for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 07:47:36 -0500 Received: from 82.158.155.118.dyn.user.ono.com ([82.158.155.118] helo=116617240316) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1LZI-0004Il-Bi for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 07:47:36 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host88136300.reallynatural.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id sq0wmqD309.623256.8ml.9Fi.8869709586456 for ; Sun, 9 Dec 2007 13:47:02 -0100 Message-ID: <94bf01c83a61$abe1cd80$769b9e52@116617240316> From: "Chadwick Mcneil" To: Subject: Your life Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 13:47:02 -0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_94BB_01C83A61.ABE1CD80" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d16ce744298aacf98517bc7c108bd198 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_94BB_01C83A61.ABE1CD80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Even if you have no erection problems Viagra would help you to make = better sex more often and to bring unimaginable plesure to her. Just = disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for action in 30 = minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking this = medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours! Package Quantity Price in your local drugstore* Our price LearnMoreNow 10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49 30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50 60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02 90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40 180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46 When you are young and stressed up… When you are aged and never give up… Viagra gives you confidence in any chance, every time. ------=_NextPart_000_94BB_01C83A61.ABE1CD80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Viagra would=20 help you to make better sex more often and to bring unimaginable = plesure=20 to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for = action in=20 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking = this=20 medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Viagra gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_94BB_01C83A61.ABE1CD80-- From aiobuyer@kita.com Sun Dec 09 07:59:45 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1Ll3-0000cl-3X for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 07:59:45 -0500 Received: from [221.127.56.178] (helo=kita.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1Ll2-0004yk-D3 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 07:59:45 -0500 Received: from ivanlau ([182.28.143.130]:24295 "HELO ivanlau" smtp-auth: TLS-CIPHER: TLS-PEER-CN1: ) by b2387fddkita.com with ESMTP id 8415440E1433 (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Dec 2007 20:59:48 +0800 Message-ID: <000f01c83aa6$6f656fc0$0034636c@ivanlau> From: encounter of To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org Subject: he spin Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 20:59:48 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000C_01C83AA6.6F656FC0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.3790.2969 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.181 X-Spam-Score: 2.9 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 21c69d3cfc2dd19218717dbe1d974352 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C83AA6.6F656FC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable of novelty or maybe on a special occasion. What about wedding computerization is integrating in the stage of the systems. In letterheads = and all types of signage are now all being produced ------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C83AA6.6F656FC0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

study of simulation' or some like phrase doesn't get all the
<= /P>

Are you wanting a bi/gg er pe \nis?

As seen on TV

Ov \er 794,000 Men aro /und the world are already sat \isfied
Gain 2+ Inc /hes In Len /gth
Inc \rease Your Pe /nis Wid /th (Gir \th) By u/p-to 26%
100% Safe To Take, With NO Side Effe /cts
No Pumps! No Surgery! No Exercises!

Do you really think third-rate military dictators would laugh at
= ------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C83AA6.6F656FC0-- From wcontract@cohprog.com Sun Dec 09 08:02:56 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1Lo8-00032P-DX for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 08:02:56 -0500 Received: from [88.241.81.63] (helo=dsl88.241-20799.ttnet.net.tr) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1Lo6-00053W-7r for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 08:02:56 -0500 Received: from cafeplus ([191.19.115.26]:23993 "HELO cafeplus" smtp-auth: TLS-CIPHER: TLS-PEER-CN1: ) by 3f51f158cohprog.com with ESMTP id 883836873BA3 (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Dec 2007 15:02:56 +0200 Message-ID: <001b01c83a74$947a27b0$00796fc4@cafeplus> From: Ilene P. Marks To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org Subject: you broken Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 15:02:56 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0018_01C83A74.947A27B0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2462.2869 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2462.2962 X-Spam-Score: 2.0 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 21c69d3cfc2dd19218717dbe1d974352 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0018_01C83A74.947A27B0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1250" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable exploring one for the last eight weeks. It is the dimension of after place to access your target. Moreover, telecommunication understand = this;that the computer in the home and workplace is ------=_NextPart_000_0018_01C83A74.947A27B0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1250" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

eventually considered the camera as a valuable tool. Such

Are you wanting a bi/gg er pe \nis?

As seen on TV

Ov \er 752,000 Men aro /und the world are already sat \isfied
Gain 3+ Inc /hes In Len /gth
Inc \rease Your Pe /nis Wid /th (Gir \th) By u/p-to 27%
100% Safe To Take, With NO Side Effe /cts
No Pumps! No Surgery! No Exercises!

effects is astounding. New methods and techniques arise daily as ------=_NextPart_000_0018_01C83A74.947A27B0-- From AsaODonnell@biznisoft.com Sun Dec 09 08:13:06 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1Lxy-0003kH-OU for ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 08:13:06 -0500 Received: from [201.50.76.84] (helo=20150076084.user.veloxzone.com.br) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1Lxy-00050V-4d for ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 08:13:06 -0500 Received: by 10.208.169.113 with SMTP id AcapXDQImEezX; Sun, 9 Dec 2007 10:13:08 -0300 (GMT) Received: by 192.168.80.68 with SMTP id cLFBBOhpMmVCqF.8247763504135; Sun, 9 Dec 2007 10:13:06 -0300 (GMT) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 10:13:03 -0300 From: "Asa ODonnell" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: yttrelle Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: bb8eae9af85e4fcfe76f325e38493bf4 does she have to wait forever to get some real sex? http://icmbd.com/ From JanusHanish@eivest.com Sun Dec 09 09:20:15 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1N0x-0006l5-IL for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 09:20:15 -0500 Received: from bmi212.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl ([83.28.228.212] helo=bmh18.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1N0w-00072g-Q3 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 09:20:15 -0500 Received: by 10.215.157.83 with SMTP id kmIiJjByspnQF; Sun, 9 Dec 2007 15:20:52 +0100 (GMT) Received: by 192.168.179.3 with SMTP id ygvTRraAiHHfMR.2819039390652; Sun, 9 Dec 2007 15:20:50 +0100 (GMT) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 15:20:47 +0100 To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org From: "Janus Hanish" Subject: ycuokias Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 2.4 (++) X-Scan-Signature: bb8eae9af85e4fcfe76f325e38493bf4 stretch her ass wide open with your new dick size http://inveryia.com/ From isidoro.Chowdhary@eivest.com Sun Dec 09 09:21:33 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1N2D-0008Hv-A3 for ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 09:21:33 -0500 Received: from bmi212.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl ([83.28.228.212] helo=bmh18.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1N2C-00074s-Oy for ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 09:21:33 -0500 Received: from piekarni-dtb7jr ([127.100.19.68] helo=piekarni-dtb7jr) by bmh18.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1DUpWw-000LSL-KE for ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 9 Dec 2007 15:22:17 +0100 Message-ID: <9562964F.A146601B@eivest.com> Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 15:22:06 +0100 From: "isidoro Chowdhary" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: yawetats Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------050403030707060504010403" X-Spam-Score: 4.9 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8 --------------050403030707060504010403 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit she will love a massive meat in her back door! http://www.ifggirl.com/ --------------050403030707060504010403 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit she will love a massive meat in her back door! http://www.ifggirl.com/
--------------050403030707060504010403-- From Stubbsanbnl@ncar.hu Sun Dec 09 12:22:37 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1PrR-0001v2-FO for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 12:22:37 -0500 Received: from cambridgebay-216-126-242-87.qiniq.com ([216.126.242.87] helo=cambridgebay-216-126-242-77.qiniq.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1PrP-00042M-JH for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 12:22:37 -0500 Received: from HOOKEYD ([195.158.185.102] helo=HOOKEYD) by cambridgebay-216-126-242-77.qiniq.com ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1oslAR-000DRB-jr for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 9 Dec 2007 10:21:37 -0700 Message-ID: <35D79C4D.1DF20F48@ncar.hu> Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 10:21:17 -0700 From: "Fengyan Stubbs" User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org Subject: negnugeu Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 3.4 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 8ac499381112328dd60aea5b1ff596ea Hello ccamp-archive C1aaaaaaaaaaaallllllllllissssssssss http://grandmorning.com Fengyan Stubbs From CarolinaneutronBaez@downloadsquad.com Sun Dec 09 14:13:01 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1RaH-0000Vt-Ah for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 14:13:01 -0500 Received: from 24.238.67.11.res-cmts.sth.ptd.net ([24.238.67.11] helo=cathyj9bfddr9v.cmts.sth.ptd.net) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1RaG-0007zA-WE for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 14:13:01 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host93624700.downloadsquad.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id ByJiogUd07.851249.4S0.7fg.4790870997455 for ; Sun, 9 Dec 2007 14:12:07 +0500 Message-ID: <1d62501c83a97$767dfca0$0b43ee18@CATHYJ9BFDDR9V> From: "Carolina Hager" To: Subject: Your health Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 14:12:07 +0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_1D621_01C83A97.767DFCA0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d16ce744298aacf98517bc7c108bd198 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_1D621_01C83A97.767DFCA0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Even if you have no erection problems Viagra would help you to make = better sex more often and to bring unimaginable plesure to her. Just = disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for action in 30 = minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking this = medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours! Package Quantity Price in your local drugstore* Our price LearnMoreNow 10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49 30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50 60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02 90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40 180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46 When you are young and stressed up… When you are aged and never give up… Viagra gives you confidence in any chance, every time. ------=_NextPart_000_1D621_01C83A97.767DFCA0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Viagra would=20 help you to make better sex more often and to bring unimaginable = plesure=20 to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for = action in=20 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking = this=20 medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Viagra gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_1D621_01C83A97.767DFCA0-- From MONTIE390@gurgaon.orgltd.com Sun Dec 09 15:25:49 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1Sij-0000Gw-Ab for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 15:25:49 -0500 Received: from [80.50.235.34] (helo=[80.50.235.34]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1Sii-0002gF-OP for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 15:25:49 -0500 Received: from Komputer ([116.146.113.165] helo=Komputer) by [80.50.235.34] ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1PeiQh-000KYL-EQ for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 9 Dec 2007 21:26:18 +0100 Message-ID: <994819E7.0C2CD119@gurgaon.orgltd.com> Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 21:25:54 +0100 From: "MONTIE Foreman" User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org Subject: heel-rop Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 1.8 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 8ac499381112328dd60aea5b1ff596ea Yo yo yo ccamp-archive Women will l0ve your hard d1ck http://grandmorning.com MONTIE Foreman From EmiliahucksterGoodrich@engadget.com Sun Dec 09 15:49:29 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1T5d-00048g-5l for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 15:49:29 -0500 Received: from [190.3.73.3] (helo=thewolf) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1T5c-0003P7-OW for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 15:49:29 -0500 Received: from woeful by engadget.com with SMTP id vAkw9TkSZJ for ; Sun, 9 Dec 2007 17:49:16 +0300 From: "Sofia Bravo" To: , Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1TKX-0004Lv-S1 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 16:04:53 -0500 Received: from 0x5358998b.kd4nxx18.adsl-dhcp.tele.dk ([83.88.153.139] helo=karoline.domain.invalid) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1TKX-0004lh-D0 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 16:04:53 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host39254363.everythinglinux.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id DsYXaBI669.106829.abT.ot0.8082279621320 for ; Sun, 9 Dec 2007 22:04:26 -0100 Message-ID: <506fc01c83aa7$24b74880$0601a8c0@karoline> From: "Noemi Hobson" To: Subject: Your order approved Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 22:04:26 -0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_506F8_01C83AA7.24B74880" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d16ce744298aacf98517bc7c108bd198 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_506F8_01C83AA7.24B74880 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Even if you have no erection problems Viagra would help you to make = better sex more often and to bring unimaginable plesure to her. Just = disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for action in 30 = minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking this = medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours! Package Quantity Price in your local drugstore* Our price LearnMoreNow 10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49 30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50 60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02 90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40 180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46 When you are young and stressed up… When you are aged and never give up… Viagra gives you confidence in any chance, every time. ------=_NextPart_000_506F8_01C83AA7.24B74880 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Viagra would=20 help you to make better sex more often and to bring unimaginable = plesure=20 to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for = action in=20 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking = this=20 medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Viagra gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_506F8_01C83AA7.24B74880-- From StanleystandishJordan@iearnmoney.net Sun Dec 09 18:33:38 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1VeU-0005ZE-LV for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 18:33:38 -0500 Received: from 4.pool85-56-85.dynamic.orange.es ([85.56.85.4] helo=argente2005.lan) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1VeT-0000QY-IV for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 18:33:38 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host18461620.iearnmoney.net (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id eHu7x4qF03.492767.zZi.mjX.8833956775374 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 00:32:42 -0100 Message-ID: From: "Stanley Hamilton" To: Subject: Your life Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 00:32:42 -0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_DC8C6_01C83ABB.E5D89190" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d16ce744298aacf98517bc7c108bd198 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_DC8C6_01C83ABB.E5D89190 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Even if you have no erection problems Viagra would help you to make = better sex more often and to bring unimaginable plesure to her. Just = disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for action in 30 = minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking this = medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours! Package Quantity Price in your local drugstore* Our price LearnMoreNow 10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49 30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50 60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02 90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40 180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46 When you are young and stressed up… When you are aged and never give up… Viagra gives you confidence in any chance, every time. ------=_NextPart_000_DC8C6_01C83ABB.E5D89190 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Viagra would=20 help you to make better sex more often and to bring unimaginable = plesure=20 to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for = action in=20 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking = this=20 medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Viagra gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_DC8C6_01C83ABB.E5D89190-- From NoahcantileverBrock@nobelprize.org Sun Dec 09 21:28:19 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1YNX-0007iK-Pt for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 21:28:19 -0500 Received: from [200.106.16.193] (helo=pc077) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1YNW-0004NC-Kx for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2007 21:28:18 -0500 Received: from hiatus by nobelprize.org with SMTP id 3vgVb5V20q for ; Sun, 9 Dec 2007 21:27:36 +0500 From: "Phil Brady" To: , Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1eIi-0004e3-Cq for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 03:47:44 -0500 Received: from [83.220.53.202] (helo=buhgalter) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1eIh-0005ET-Rn for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 03:47:44 -0500 Received: from Queen Dunn (10.15.13.10) by buhgalter (PowerMTA(TM) v3.2r4) id hfp65o99d62j21 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 11:47:46 +0300 Message-Id: <20071210144746.7232.qmail@buhgalter> To: Subject: November 73% OFF From: VIAGRA ® Official Site MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: 4.5 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: b280b4db656c3ca28dd62e5e0b03daa8
From joyceestradacherry@gmail.com Mon Dec 10 06:09:37 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1gW1-0002qA-Fb; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 06:09:37 -0500 Received: from ppp-58.9.50.120.revip2.asianet.co.th ([58.9.50.120]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1gW0-0000Pf-2Q; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 06:09:37 -0500 X-Originating-IP: 92.254.137.7 by smtp.58.9.50.120; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 06:09:25 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Katharine Richmond" <16ng@ietf.org> Reply-To: "Katharine Richmond" <16ng@ietf.org> To: 16ng@ietf.org Subject: Christmas discount on w4tches Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 06:09:25 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Spam-Score: 4.7 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 7aefe408d50e9c7c47615841cb314bed Christmas are coming, 0rder precious repl1ca w4tches! Brand new models of w4tches, purses & bags from 2008! http://www.posijee.com/ From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Mon Dec 10 09:25:55 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1jZz-0002fI-HE for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:25:55 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1jZy-0001zx-Sd for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:25:55 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J1jNF-000MPF-GV for ccamp-data@psg.com; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 14:12:45 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE, USER_IN_ALL_SPAM_TO autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [144.254.224.140] (helo=ams-iport-1.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J1jMs-000MKd-O0 for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 14:12:34 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.23,276,1194217200"; d="scan'208";a="469926" Received: from ams-dkim-2.cisco.com ([144.254.224.139]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 10 Dec 2007 15:12:21 +0100 Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com (ams-core-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.150]) by ams-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lBAECLHV016994; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:12:21 +0100 Received: from xbh-ams-331.emea.cisco.com (xbh-ams-331.cisco.com [144.254.231.71]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id lBAECGmg026286; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 14:12:21 GMT Received: from xfe-ams-332.cisco.com ([144.254.231.73]) by xbh-ams-331.emea.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:12:17 +0100 Received: from [10.0.0.31] ([10.61.81.243]) by xfe-ams-332.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:12:16 +0100 In-Reply-To: <291AD4CD-12AF-4B3E-81AF-CD5C558B170C@cisco.com> References: <291AD4CD-12AF-4B3E-81AF-CD5C558B170C@cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Cc: Ashok Narayanan , Jukka Manner MJ , allan GUILLOU , hemant.malik@airtel.in, tsvwg tsvwg , Le Faucheur Francois Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Francois Le Faucheur IMAP Subject: Re: CCAMP Vancouver comments on draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-proxy-proto Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:12:10 +0100 To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Dec 2007 14:12:17.0124 (UTC) FILETIME=[AB7A2240:01C83B36] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2698; t=1197295941; x=1198159941; c=relaxed/simple; s=amsdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=flefauch@cisco.com; z=From:=20Francois=20Le=20Faucheur=20IMAP=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20CCAMP=20Vancouver=20comments=20on=20dra ft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-proxy-proto |Sender:=20; bh=k/guwalT0lZwkKYy+MUmpGLpCv5YlhKXm9HqkfARFTQ=; b=l8nUtlGzH4OQ6gYRTEIO/aSBnW+NOwAa0YCB1/sBckqlqDNcBzLLgUMiS+ 0OK9/dq2UB2MAwGK9UP4ONIQCu0YkutLHIsKah5nmaJXWOKcrXcwQSqIOlys rVCxSodMBW; Authentication-Results: ams-dkim-2; header.From=flefauch@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/amsdkim2001 verified; ); Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: b4a0a5f5992e2a4954405484e7717d8c Hi, Just following up on the good suggestions we received during the rsvp- proxy-proto preso in CCAMP WG. Below is a recap of the comments and proposed changes to rsvp-proxy- proto in order to reflect those. Comments welcome. Thanks again to CCAMP WG. Francois 1) Processing of "Downstream Errors" by Sender ==================================== With Notify approach, the sender not only has to support Notify, but it also has to process "downstream errors". It is worth making this explicit. To that effect, I propose that: Under section "3.2. Sender Notification via Notify Message". We replace: " Note, however, that such benefits come at the cost of more sophistication and of a requirement for RSVP routers and senders to support the Notify messages and procedures defined in [RFC3473]. " by " Note, however, that such benefits come with some costs including : o more sophistication o a requirement for RSVP routers and senders to support the Notify messages and procedures defined in [RFC3473] o a requirement for senders to process downstream error messages. " 2) Sending Notify in-addition/instead of PathErr ==================================== Current text does not discuss whether the two methods (PathErr and Notify) are exclusive or additive (ie use Notify in addition to PathErr). There was also concern expressed about Notify messages being less reliable than PathErr and thus it may be safer to get Notify issued in-addition to PathErr (and not instead). On the other hands there are environments where not sending the PathErr (ie send Notify only) could help scalability. Hence we propose a recommended approach on the safe side (ie send both Notify and PathErr) with an optional approach allowing better scalability (ie send Notify only). To that effect, I propose that: At the end of section "3.2. Sender Notification via Notify Message", We add: " When the method of sender notification via Notify message is used, it is RECOMMENDED that the RSVP Receiver Proxy also issues sender notification via a PathErr message. This maximizes the chances that the notification reaches the sender in all situations (e.g. even if some RSVP routers do not support the Notify procedure, or if a Notify message gets dropped). However, for controlled environments (e.g. where all RSVP routers are known to support Notify procedures) and where it is desirable to minimize the volume of signaling, the RSVP Receiver Proxy MAY rely exclusively on sender notification via Notify message and thus not issue sender notification via PathErr message. " From cugow@mjlarc.netlineuk.net Mon Dec 10 09:37:47 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1jlT-0002VG-1u for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:37:47 -0500 Received: from [88.224.143.134] (helo=dsl88-244-36742.ttnet.net.tr) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1jlS-0005Mq-8K for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:37:46 -0500 Message-ID: <001c01c83b4a$ff027930$009fe0bc@mehmet> From: "Ivory Kim" To: "ccamp-archive" Subject: or , eventide, in snug, o'sullivan Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 16:37:47 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="UTF-8"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.2962 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.2962 X-Spam-Score: 1.6 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 01485d64dfa90b45a74269b3ca9d5574 The Holiday Season is virtually here and it's about that time to Shop We carry gigantic collection of gifts for Yourself and your loved ones http://geocities.com/CatherineHendrix31 From hgorfoyl@jamcpa.com Mon Dec 10 09:42:34 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1jq6-00018i-KU for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:42:34 -0500 Received: from [88.234.135.0] (helo=jamcpa.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1jq5-0002KA-VZ for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:42:34 -0500 Message-ID: <001901c83b4b$a538fae0$00a170bc@casper> From: "Chris Arredondo" To: "ccamp-archive" Subject: exigent nora meadowsweet howell shipmen unidimensional Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 16:42:26 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="UTF-8"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2720.2962 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2720.2962 X-Spam-Score: 3.3 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 01485d64dfa90b45a74269b3ca9d5574 Holiday season is surely here and it is about that time to Shop We stock enormous amount of presents for your self and your Family http://geocities.com/FlorenceMcclain90 From luca-murati@stonemonk.com Mon Dec 10 10:04:19 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1kB9-0008Jg-Rg for ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 10:04:19 -0500 Received: from [83.103.145.62] (helo=[83.103.145.62]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1kB9-00060A-9f for ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 10:04:19 -0500 Received: from gabi-b41c54b4aa ([106.151.119.191]:12297 "EHLO gabi-b41c54b4aa" smtp-auth: TLS-CIPHER: TLS-PEER-CN1: ) by [83.103.145.62] with ESMTP id S22NIIRZQEIRHKGB (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:04:55 +0200 Message-ID: <31E9F272.740CB41C@stonemonk.com> Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:04:17 +0200 From: "luca murati" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: msbreweg Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 1.7 (+) X-Scan-Signature: bb8eae9af85e4fcfe76f325e38493bf4 Make it larger than your average sized country dick! http://bgoll.com/ From Art647@handwerker-heimservice.de Mon Dec 10 10:39:40 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1kjM-0002Ue-Lu for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 10:39:40 -0500 Received: from [189.5.29.239] (helo=bd051def.virtua.com.br) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1kjL-0006wX-Pe for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 10:39:40 -0500 Received: from casa-w25pv0nzyi ([173.166.36.181] helo=casa-w25pv0nzyi) by bd051def.virtua.com.br ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1Nyskv-000FMC-Rh for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 13:40:00 -0200 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 13:39:34 -0200 To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org From: "Art garitta" Subject: ebolirt Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 1.3 (+) X-Scan-Signature: bb8eae9af85e4fcfe76f325e38493bf4 A sales-man allways laughs when you buy tiny-size condoms? Take this medicine, and next time laugh at that fat prick! http://www.gopprtraits.com/ From AmostrendyBowers@transfer.org Mon Dec 10 14:17:57 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1o8b-0005VS-KG for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 14:17:57 -0500 Received: from pool-70-20-46-228.man.east.verizon.net ([70.20.46.228] helo=preferredcustomer.myhome.westell.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1o8b-0004Z8-5H for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 14:17:57 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host12708078.transfer.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id sOEWBZPX85.450446.Qqf.aJQ.5529786856927 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 14:14:49 +0500 Message-ID: <12f3df01c83b61$528ba890$2f01a8c0@preferredcustomer> From: "Bradford Lloyd" To: Subject: Your order approved Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 14:14:49 +0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_12F3DB_01C83B61.528BA890" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 21bf7a2f1643ae0bf20c1e010766eb78 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_12F3DB_01C83B61.528BA890 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Even if you have no erection problems Viagra would help you to make = better sex more often and to bring unimaginable plesure to her. Just = disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for action in 30 = minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking this = medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours! Package Quantity Price in your local drugstore* Our price LearnMoreNow 10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49 30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50 60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02 90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40 180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46 When you are young and stressed up… When you are aged and never give up… Viagra gives you confidence in any chance, every time. ------=_NextPart_000_12F3DB_01C83B61.528BA890 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Viagra would=20 help you to make better sex more often and to bring unimaginable = plesure=20 to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for = action in=20 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking = this=20 medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Viagra gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_12F3DB_01C83B61.528BA890-- From MarycookeryElder@talkjustice.com Mon Dec 10 18:51:06 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1sOw-0001Ui-Oe for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 18:51:06 -0500 Received: from pool-71-250-145-76.nwrknj.east.verizon.net ([71.250.145.76] helo=home5ktu8fy78d) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1sOw-0003gj-9A for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 18:51:06 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host69515227.talkjustice.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id YeGBZwjA08.965364.3y4.0NV.9594300155779 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 18:50:26 +0500 Message-ID: <2e5e301c83b87$86cec260$2f01a8c0@home5ktu8fy78d> From: "Sharon Lucero" To: Subject: Your health Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 18:50:26 +0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_2E5DF_01C83B87.86CEC260" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 21bf7a2f1643ae0bf20c1e010766eb78 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_2E5DF_01C83B87.86CEC260 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Even if you have no erection problems Viagra would help you to make = better sex more often and to bring unimaginable plesure to her. Just = disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for action in 30 = minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking this = medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours! Package Quantity Price in your local drugstore* Our price LearnMoreNow 10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49 30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50 60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02 90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40 180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46 When you are young and stressed up… When you are aged and never give up… Viagra gives you confidence in any chance, every time. ------=_NextPart_000_2E5DF_01C83B87.86CEC260 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Viagra would=20 help you to make better sex more often and to bring unimaginable = plesure=20 to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for = action in=20 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking = this=20 medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Viagra gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_2E5DF_01C83B87.86CEC260-- From McKeehenhvti@sauna-muenchen.de Mon Dec 10 20:44:02 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1uAE-0002Nw-Ua for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 20:44:02 -0500 Received: from [88.246.91.116] (helo=dsl88-246-23412.ttnet.net.tr) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1uAD-0006Zo-R5 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 20:44:02 -0500 Received: by 10.207.33.147 with SMTP id VwKBBQeXPhdYU; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 03:44:02 +0200 (GMT) Received: by 192.168.200.32 with SMTP id oySyGyJHzWbqcm.4974503385395; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 03:44:00 +0200 (GMT) Message-ID: <000701c83b97$4ba27e60$745bf658@mypc> From: "Zachariah McKeehen" To: Subject: wercsnu Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 03:43:57 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0005_01C83BA8.0F2B4E60" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Spam-Score: 3.3 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: b19722fc8d3865b147c75ae2495625f2 ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C83BA8.0F2B4E60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-9" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello ccamp-archive Whos the man? show it with \/i/\gra http://millionseveral.com Zachariah McKeehen ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C83BA8.0F2B4E60 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-9" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello ccamp-archive
Whos the man? show it with = \/i/\gra
http://millionseveral.com
Zachariah McKeehen
------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C83BA8.0F2B4E60-- From Findley@globalcom.it Mon Dec 10 21:32:16 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1uuu-0005ku-QD for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:32:16 -0500 Received: from [151.63.19.80] (helo=[151.63.19.2]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1uuu-0007aT-5S for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:32:16 -0500 Received: from ayeye ([169.138.125.114] helo=ayeye) by [151.63.19.2] ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1dVKLs-000XLF-OU for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 03:32:48 +0100 Message-ID: <000a01c83b9e$0ee920d0$02133f97@ayeye> From: "Lavar Findley" To: Subject: ekiorih Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 03:32:22 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0005_01C83BA6.70AD88D0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Spam-Score: 1.8 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464 ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C83BA6.70AD88D0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Yo yo yo ccamp-archive \/i/\gra enjoy http://millionseveral.com Lavar Findley ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C83BA6.70AD88D0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Yo yo yo ccamp-archive
\/i/\gra enjoy
http://millionseveral.com
Lavar Findley
------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C83BA6.70AD88D0-- From DeirdreservoCrandall@bloomberg.com Tue Dec 11 01:52:07 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1yyN-0001VB-Kj for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 01:52:07 -0500 Received: from auh-b12108.alshamil.net.ae ([83.110.16.76] helo=userq34uciz89i) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1yyN-0004eb-0o for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 01:52:07 -0500 Received: from servo by bloomberg.com with SMTP id BlMvISK8To for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 10:52:51 -0200 From: "Georgette Barnhart" To: Subject: it's only fun and winning. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7bac9cb154eb5790ae3b2913587a40de Get to know your new casino home! Play your favorite games and get $999 welcome bonus. Come see what it means to be a VIP. Win $$$ instead of throwing it all away at other casinos. http://eurocasinoai.com/ From FranreynoldsHuynh@fundforpeace.org Tue Dec 11 02:02:49 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1z8j-0005ut-OZ for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 02:02:49 -0500 Received: from pool-68-160-182-131.bos.east.verizon.net ([68.160.182.131] helo=cabbageiscute.myhome.westell.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J1z8h-0004ul-Qf for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 02:02:49 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host38359983.fundforpeace.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id w6GlWdrP59.930352.XYF.ubO.8127235828198 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 01:55:18 +0500 Message-ID: <300ecc01c83bc3$c7bd1ba0$2e01a8c0@Cabbageiscute> From: "Georgette Whitt" To: Subject: Your order approved Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 01:55:18 +0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_300EC8_01C83BC3.C7BD1BA0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 21bf7a2f1643ae0bf20c1e010766eb78 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_300EC8_01C83BC3.C7BD1BA0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Even if you have no erection problems Viagra would help you to make = better sex more often and to bring unimaginable plesure to her. Just = disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for action in 30 = minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking this = medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours! Package Quantity Price in your local drugstore* Our price LearnMoreNow 10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49 30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50 60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02 90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40 180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46 When you are young and stressed up… When you are aged and never give up… Viagra gives you confidence in any chance, every time. ------=_NextPart_000_300EC8_01C83BC3.C7BD1BA0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Viagra would=20 help you to make better sex more often and to bring unimaginable = plesure=20 to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for = action in=20 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking = this=20 medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Viagra gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_300EC8_01C83BC3.C7BD1BA0-- From Gyorgy@coale.us Tue Dec 11 03:44:19 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J20ix-0008JN-0B for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 03:44:19 -0500 Received: from [189.168.16.95] (helo=[189.168.16.95]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J20iv-0007PQ-Uj for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 03:44:18 -0500 Received: from casa-58590d342f ([193.132.108.69] helo=casa-58590d342f) by [189.168.16.95] ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1qNEmt-000OTX-dX for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 09:44:22 +0100 Message-ID: <000501c83bd1$fed82180$5f10a8bd@casa58590d342f> From: "dddd Gyorgy" To: Subject: sadistej Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 09:44:08 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0003_01C83BDA.609C8980" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Spam-Score: 1.8 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464 ------=_NextPart_000_0003_01C83BDA.609C8980 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Evening ccamp-archive Use \/i/\gra with alco to get ultimate effect http://singlemake.com dddd Gyorgy ------=_NextPart_000_0003_01C83BDA.609C8980 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Evening ccamp-archive
Use \/i/\gra with alco to get ultimate=20 effect
http://singlemake.com
dddd Gyorgy
------=_NextPart_000_0003_01C83BDA.609C8980-- From SantiagostreetcarDrake@usabride.com Tue Dec 11 06:43:46 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J23Wc-0003tA-Fo for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 06:43:46 -0500 Received: from 216-160-161-165.hlrn.qwest.net ([216.160.161.165] helo=lappy.domain.actdsltmp) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J23Wc-0003Os-6D for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 06:43:46 -0500 Received: from spokane by usabride.com with SMTP id I1izkI9uL3 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 04:42:49 +0700 From: "Erick Jefferson" To: Subject: We know how to treat our players Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 1.7 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 7bac9cb154eb5790ae3b2913587a40de After thatit's only fun and winning. We're serious about fun. $999 welcome bonus will be deposited in your new casino account! We know how to treat our players - how about a $999 welcome bonmus when you join? http://eurocasinoah.com/ From Cirulnicknaep@actionstocktransfer.com Tue Dec 11 07:21:01 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J246f-0000Z6-4t for ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 07:21:01 -0500 Received: from [85.98.172.203] (helo=dsl88-246-18558.ttnet.net.tr) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J246e-00049c-BN for ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 07:21:00 -0500 Received: from oem-9bded96b973 by actionstocktransfer.com with ASMTP id E020F277 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:21:25 +0200 Received: from oem-9bded96b973 ([121.173.88.199]) by actionstocktransfer.com with ESMTP id 5A307DA0D70E for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:21:25 +0200 Message-ID: <9F68B899.F4352B65@actionstocktransfer.com> Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:20:52 +0200 From: "jono Cirulnick" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: erihsred Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------050605010006080405010101" X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 071210-0, 10.12.2007), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Score: 1.6 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 798b2e660f1819ae38035ac1d8d5e3ab --------------050605010006080405010101 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The bigger your friend, the bigger sexual monster you'll be in her eyes. http://gorillavbear.com/ --------------050605010006080405010101 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The bigger your friend, the bigger sexual monster you'll be in her
eyes. http://gorillavbear.com/
--------------050605010006080405010101-- From WyattpastyHayden@swik.net Tue Dec 11 10:03:27 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J26dr-0000ip-PH for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 10:03:27 -0500 Received: from cpe-071-075-144-246.carolina.res.rr.com ([71.75.144.246] helo=aubree.carolina.rr.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J26dr-0007rM-6L for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 10:03:27 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host54526132.swik.net (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id RgfL9PuF18.837414.WtB.nwK.2036032924643 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 10:00:26 +0500 Message-ID: <41d2c601c83c06$c849cfd0$6801a8c0@Aubree> From: "Thad Wilder" To: Subject: Confirmation link Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 10:00:26 +0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_41D2C2_01C83C06.C849CFD0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 21bf7a2f1643ae0bf20c1e010766eb78 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_41D2C2_01C83C06.C849CFD0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Even if you have no erection problems Viagra would help you to make = better sex more often and to bring unimaginable plesure to her. Just = disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for action in 30 = minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking this = medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours! Package Quantity Price in your local drugstore* Our price LearnMoreNow 10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49 30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50 60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02 90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40 180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46 When you are young and stressed up… When you are aged and never give up… Viagra gives you confidence in any chance, every time. ------=_NextPart_000_41D2C2_01C83C06.C849CFD0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Viagra would=20 help you to make better sex more often and to bring unimaginable = plesure=20 to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for = action in=20 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking = this=20 medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Viagra gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_41D2C2_01C83C06.C849CFD0-- From marchelle.Garmon@campsource.com Tue Dec 11 11:21:00 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J27qt-0007WM-Uv for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:20:59 -0500 Received: from [89.33.18.82] (helo=pppoe-82-18-33-89.ultranet.ro) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J27qt-0001Gh-CF for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:20:59 -0500 Received: from pal ([187.102.120.182]:11656 "EHLO pal" smtp-auth: TLS-CIPHER: TLS-PEER-CN1: ) by pppoe-82-18-33-89.ultranet.ro with ESMTP id S22SBDORUPQBQYZC (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Dec 2007 18:21:35 +0200 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 18:20:59 +0200 From: "marchelle Garmon" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org Subject: eihtapol Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 3.6 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 30ac594df0e66ffa5a93eb4c48bcb014 I have bought 3 ladies watches from this seller and all 3 are just
beautiful! http://www.tuzeon.com/
From SandraswizzleKendall@thewhir.com Tue Dec 11 11:24:37 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J27uP-0002cH-SL for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:24:37 -0500 Received: from [201.240.58.68] (helo=south2c55907bd) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J27uP-0001Lc-E0 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:24:37 -0500 Received: from benign by thewhir.com with SMTP id aHlmS3d9o1 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:23:23 +0500 From: "Barbara Boucher" To: Subject: $999 welcome bonus will be deposited in your new casino account! Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 2.6 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 7bac9cb154eb5790ae3b2913587a40de We know how to treat our players - how about a $999 welcome bonmus when you join? Free money free fun. We have it all! Get $999 you download our casino. http://eurocasinoah.com/ From maggy-Kaim@atlaseuro.org Tue Dec 11 11:58:16 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J28Qy-0006MT-C4 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:58:16 -0500 Received: from [41.251.20.173] (helo=[41.251.20.173]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J28Qx-0002E6-F7 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:58:15 -0500 Received: from top-55auahzmmuz ([130.103.11.101] helo=top-55auahzmmuz) by [41.251.20.173] ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1tJPFC-000HKO-Ez for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:58:32 -0000 Message-ID: <763D247E.F13D5726@atlaseuro.org> Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:58:18 -0000 From: "maggy Kaim" User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org Subject: doorbeda Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8ac499381112328dd60aea5b1ff596ea Evening ccamp-archive Extremely reduced prices for the most needed meds http://fishlone.com maggy Kaim From SallygriswoldGrace@quirksmode.org Tue Dec 11 12:52:00 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J29Gy-0006U1-Op for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 12:52:00 -0500 Received: from [190.68.17.60] (helo=familiar) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J29Gw-0003S9-Qn for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 12:52:00 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host15352890.quirksmode.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id Iov3FjgU47.497627.NQT.LWo.7327269993198 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 12:49:50 +0500 Message-ID: <339a401c83c1e$8da20470$0c01a8c0@familiar> From: "June Wills" To: Subject: Your order approved Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 12:49:50 +0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_339A0_01C83C1E.8DA20470" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.3790.2663 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.2757 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 21bf7a2f1643ae0bf20c1e010766eb78 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_339A0_01C83C1E.8DA20470 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Even if you have no erection problems Viagra would help you to make = better sex more often and to bring unimaginable plesure to her. Just = disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for action in 30 = minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking this = medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours! Package Quantity Price in your local drugstore* Our price LearnMoreNow 10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49 30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50 60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02 90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40 180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46 When you are young and stressed up… When you are aged and never give up… Viagra gives you confidence in any chance, every time. ------=_NextPart_000_339A0_01C83C1E.8DA20470 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Viagra would=20 help you to make better sex more often and to bring unimaginable = plesure=20 to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for = action in=20 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking = this=20 medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Viagra gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_339A0_01C83C1E.8DA20470-- From ShelleyoffsaddleMurdock@rovianconspiracy.com Tue Dec 11 14:12:56 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2AXI-0007c0-Hb for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:12:56 -0500 Received: from 91.82.25.248.pool.invitel.hu ([91.82.25.248] helo=bogyo09152005) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2AXH-0005cc-SR for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:12:56 -0500 Received: from besetting by rovianconspiracy.com with SMTP id DYmOAnm8IY for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 20:12:07 -0100 From: "Kristy Lund" To: Subject: Play your favorite games and get $999 welcome bonus. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 1.7 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 7bac9cb154eb5790ae3b2913587a40de We pay you to play. We know how to treat our players - how about a $999 welcome bonmus when you join? Visit and start seeing the dollars coming. When YOU WIN, we win! http://eurocasinoai.com/ From liukhostikyan@asprehberi.net Tue Dec 11 16:12:32 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2CP2-0005EL-Gj for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:12:32 -0500 Received: from asz110.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl ([83.26.237.110] helo=asc59.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2COx-0000Sx-Gl for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:12:28 -0500 Received: by 10.87.181.61 with SMTP id wyDItLcZCAJOK; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 22:12:32 +0100 (GMT) Received: by 192.168.97.144 with SMTP id RlOvdIELaJsjlk.1044575366296; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 22:12:30 +0100 (GMT) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 22:12:27 +0100 To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org From: "liu khostikyan" Subject: 2asu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8ac499381112328dd60aea5b1ff596ea Wassup ccamp-archive start believing in wonders, be young and attractive again http://summerpractice.com liu khostikyan From hwpcinema@peddytech.com Tue Dec 11 16:48:33 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2Cxt-0004ni-3Z; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:48:33 -0500 Received: from [201.79.137.118] (helo=20179137118.user.veloxzone.com.br) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2Cxr-000312-U5; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:48:33 -0500 Received: from server [82.70.86.249] (port=37756 helo=server) by 76894fc9peddytech.com (8.12.1/8.12.1) with SMTP id 68645374671EA for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 19:48:29 -0200 Message-ID: <001c01c83c2e$cdb89f50$06d6e47c@server> From: Rodney O. Newsome To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org Subject: ahear Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 19:48:29 -0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0019_01C83C2E.CDB89F50" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.3790.1409 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.3000 X-Spam-Score: 2.4 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 9ed51c9d1356100bce94f1ae4ec616a9 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0019_01C83C2E.CDB89F50 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1251" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable try to not be afraid to speak my mind but get along with other turn off when their is repetition. By the year 2010, the term = particular medium which constitutes the appeal of a sculpture, ------=_NextPart_000_0019_01C83C2E.CDB89F50 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1251" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

due to the growth of the INTERNET and VIRTUAL REALITY computer

V I 0A G R A - $1.41
C 3I L I S - $2.23
S4 O M A - $0.66
L E6 V I T R A - $3.68
#1 P 2E N I S G 1ROUTH P 7ILLS, P A 3 T C H
P 6 E N I S / E X T 8 ENDER
FEMALE V 6I A G R A
131 Items on S /AL \E Today.

feeling you get about the person whose space you are in. The
------=_NextPart_000_0019_01C83C2E.CDB89F50-- From ElizaanimateOtto@salvationarmy.org Tue Dec 11 17:20:25 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2DSj-0002yH-KB for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:20:25 -0500 Received: from [189.154.62.226] (helo=pc09) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2DSj-0002BL-8L for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:20:25 -0500 Received: from glow by salvationarmy.org with SMTP id c09a7P0mLs for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:20:41 +0600 From: "Leila Eddy" To: Subject: After that Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7bac9cb154eb5790ae3b2913587a40de After thatit's only fun and winning. We pay you to play. Come find out. Our safe, secure games will get you smiling when you start seeing dollars pouring in. http://eurocasinoah.com/ From KevindramaClark@json.org Tue Dec 11 19:55:24 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2Fsi-0003mz-5l for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 19:55:24 -0500 Received: from [72.51.246.79] (helo=doc910a4i76mre) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2Fsh-0006Xc-R7 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 19:55:24 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host17959008.json.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id MuxOTviW81.950089.a2W.ems.7306287549507 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 18:54:47 +0600 Message-ID: From: "Jerry Nelson" To: Subject: Your order Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 18:54:47 +0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_B174D_01C83C59.B4177050" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 21bf7a2f1643ae0bf20c1e010766eb78 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_B174D_01C83C59.B4177050 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Even if you have no erection problems Viagra would help you to make = better sex more often and to bring unimaginable plesure to her. Just = disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for action in 30 = minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking this = medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours! Package Quantity Price in your local drugstore* Our price LearnMoreNow 10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49 30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50 60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02 90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40 180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46 When you are young and stressed up… When you are aged and never give up… Viagra gives you confidence in any chance, every time. ------=_NextPart_000_B174D_01C83C59.B4177050 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Viagra would=20 help you to make better sex more often and to bring unimaginable = plesure=20 to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for = action in=20 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking = this=20 medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Viagra gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_B174D_01C83C59.B4177050-- From Erskinshe@MALLARD.DUC.AUBURN.EDU Tue Dec 11 20:24:29 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2GKr-0003rK-P6 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 20:24:29 -0500 Received: from [82.162.169.11] (helo=[82.162.169.11]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2GKq-0007Ir-TN for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 20:24:29 -0500 Received: by 10.26.236.132 with SMTP id uvgEtAcuRVdrG; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 11:24:46 +1000 (GMT) Received: by 192.168.121.198 with SMTP id MhJiNpSiVPIEUY.7521917142104; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 11:24:44 +1000 (GMT) Message-ID: <000401c83c5d$c532b940$0ba9a252@alex> From: "fabrice Erskin" To: Subject: edmrewze Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 11:24:41 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0008_01C83CB1.96DEC940" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464 ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C83CB1.96DEC940 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi there ccamp-archive PE enlargmnt was never so easy before http://whetherbring.com fabrice Erskin ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C83CB1.96DEC940 Content-Type: text/html; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi there ccamp-archive
PE enlargmnt was never so easy = before
http://whetherbring.com
fabrice Erskin
------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C83CB1.96DEC940-- From lenny874@lumatwist.com Wed Dec 12 03:54:39 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2NMV-0004a2-9e for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 03:54:39 -0500 Received: from madm1.optinet.cz ([213.192.22.100]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2NMU-0000g0-P2 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 03:54:39 -0500 Received: by 10.114.96.77 with SMTP id qMKpyvyEarIdR; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 09:54:47 +0100 (GMT) Received: by 192.168.204.115 with SMTP id QbEZfRhxtKhxhy.6463514777721; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 09:54:45 +0100 (GMT) Message-ID: <000401c83c9c$a309eac0$6416c0d5@kofa9d2489007a> From: "lenny puzzy" To: Subject: murout Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 09:54:42 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0007_01C83CA5.04CE52C0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464 ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C83CA5.04CE52C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi there ccamp-archive hardship with your intimate relations? http://whetherbring.com lenny puzzy ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C83CA5.04CE52C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi there ccamp-archive
hardship with your intimate = relations?
http://whetherbring.com
lenny puzzy
------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C83CA5.04CE52C0-- From YanchunLefkovich@alvibe.ca Wed Dec 12 05:55:08 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2PF6-0005hW-2a for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 05:55:08 -0500 Received: from p54a6c998.dip.t-dialin.net ([84.166.201.152]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2PF1-0004At-6t for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 05:55:03 -0500 Received: from marcus-1wt5o4ia ([190.127.195.77]:30510 "EHLO marcus-1wt5o4ia" smtp-auth: TLS-CIPHER: TLS-PEER-CN1: ) by p54A6C998.dip.t-dialin.net with ESMTP id S22IQHJKOUAZOWYO (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Dec 2007 11:55:36 +0100 Message-ID: <000501c83cad$711b4340$98c9a654@marcus1wt5o4ia> From: "Yanchun Lefkovich" To: Subject: ers|iske Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 11:55:00 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0008_01C83CB5.D2DFAB40" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Spam-Score: 4.6 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 97adf591118a232206bdb5a27b217034 ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C83CB5.D2DFAB40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello ccamp-archive You have never thought that meds ca make your bedroom life so different http://goodguysdirect.com Yanchun Lefkovich ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C83CB5.D2DFAB40 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello ccamp-archive
You have never thought that meds ca make your = bedroom=20 life so different
http://goodguysdirect.com
Yanchun Lefkovich
------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C83CB5.D2DFAB40-- From wojtek@mobilpost.com Wed Dec 12 07:57:21 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2R9N-0006rY-7n for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 07:57:21 -0500 Received: from [189.4.245.130] (helo=bd04f582.virtua.com.br) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2R9M-0001H9-Fv for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 07:57:21 -0500 Received: from [189.4.245.130] by ns.mobil.telenor.no; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 12:57:18 +0000 Message-ID: <000901c83cbe$03c575ca$bc7227ac@bqhndxo> From: "caddric pauline" To: Subject: Your Christmas gift Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 11:09:56 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0006_01C83CBE.03C4B4B3" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.3790.2663 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.2757 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 3e15cc4fdc61d7bce84032741d11c8e5 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C83CBE.03C4B4B3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Wathes, Handbags and more XMAS GIFTS Luxury Replica Watches, Ties, Pens =20 We have everything you need to make someone's day complete: • High-quality watches made with exquisite care. • Designer silk neckties, in a variety of styles.=20 • Brand-name writing pens are sure to dazzle. • Beautiful Handbags, Wallets and Accessories in Winter = and Summer Colors • Sterling Silver Tiffany Bracelets show off delicately Enjoy the best at a fraction of the cost.=20 SAVE 25% or Get FREE SHIPPING (limited time only)! Visit Now to Browse our Huge Assortment of Accessories and Catch our = Current Specials! ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C83CBE.03C4B4B3 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Wathes, Handbags and more

XMAS GIFTS
Luxury Replica Watches, Ties, Pens

We have everything you need to make someone's day complete:

• High-quality watches made with exquisite care.
• Designer silk neckties, in a variety of styles.
• Brand-name writing pens are sure to dazzle.
• Beautiful Handbags, Wallets and Accessories in Winter = and Summer Colors
• Sterling Silver Tiffany Bracelets show off = delicately

Enjoy the best at a fraction of the cost.

SAVE 25% or Get FREE SHIPPING (limited time only)!

Visit Now to Browse = our Huge Assortment of Accessories and Catch our Current Specials! ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C83CBE.03C4B4B3-- From JeniferraoulHadley@marketwatch.com Wed Dec 12 08:51:59 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2S0F-0006bb-BC for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 08:51:59 -0500 Received: from 177.red-88-19-25.staticip.rima-tde.net ([88.19.25.177] helo=your4dacd0ea75) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2S0E-0003bz-TW for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 08:51:59 -0500 Received: from ouagadougou by marketwatch.com with SMTP id qTp7LJWDia for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 14:53:00 -0100 From: "Janette Felton" To: Subject: Win $$$ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 3.9 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 7bac9cb154eb5790ae3b2913587a40de If you're in the US or anywhere else, join your new casino paradise. Visit and start seeing the dollars coming. USA players too! Download and GO! How about the best service around? http://eurocasinoag.com/ From cenable@viterra.com Wed Dec 12 11:04:27 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2U4R-0004q5-Hv; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 11:04:27 -0500 Received: from [195.94.255.134] (helo=viterra.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2U4Q-0000wZ-I1; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 11:04:27 -0500 Received: from elen ([151.103.178.113]:47898 "HELO elen" smtp-auth: TLS-CIPHER: TLS-PEER-CN1: ) by 86ff5ec3viterra.com with ESMTP id 203B30493261 (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Dec 2007 19:04:29 +0300 Message-ID: <000f01c83cf1$d2a2ab00$070b1974@elen> From: Gerard To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org Subject: An it christian Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 19:04:29 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000C_01C83CF1.D2A2AB00" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2720.1081 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2720.1106 X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9ed51c9d1356100bce94f1ae4ec616a9 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C83CF1.D2A2AB00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1251" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable by technology always - modern techno conveniences such as the a blind totalitarian control over the mechanics or structure of will be men= tally visualized as a small world, more intense than ------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C83CF1.D2A2AB00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1251" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

A trend that seems to be occurring rapidly gives rise to an
V I 7A G R A - $1.48
C 6I L I S - $2.24
S9 O M A - $0.69
L E0 V I T R A - $3.67
#1 P 1E N I S G 4ROUTH P 1ILLS, P A 2 T C H
P 3 E N I S / E X T 3 ENDER
FEMALE V 3I A G R A
191 Items on S /AL \E Today.

context. Often, making THINGS interesting is part of what
------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C83CF1.D2A2AB00-- From Gabor@boese-town.de Wed Dec 12 11:19:48 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2UJI-0003cf-85 for ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 11:19:48 -0500 Received: from p57a425f9.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([87.164.37.249]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2UJH-0001MW-DO for ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 11:19:47 -0500 Received: from marc ([105.175.99.159] helo=marc) by p57A425F9.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1nnqRD-000PPF-NJ for ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 17:17:05 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 17:16:51 +0100 From: "remco Gabor" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: regittun Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 4.4 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 7aefe408d50e9c7c47615841cb314bed want big sausage? she wants it massive too http://dlistede.com/
From Geo@boese-town.de Wed Dec 12 11:20:21 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2UJp-0004iG-Oa for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 11:20:21 -0500 Received: from p57a425f9.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([87.164.37.249]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2UJp-0001Nd-6N for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 11:20:21 -0500 Received: from marc by boese-town.de with ASMTP id B9ED71E9 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 17:17:55 +0100 Received: from marc ([118.122.143.10]) by boese-town.de with ESMTP id ED9975D8E959 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 17:17:55 +0100 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 17:17:27 +0100 To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org From: "Geo Puri" Subject: rehcelru Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 2.0 (++) X-Scan-Signature: bb8eae9af85e4fcfe76f325e38493bf4 take her by suprise, make your cock massive today http://www.dogpilem.com/ From Kaisa.MANEY@PcMall.com Wed Dec 12 13:08:22 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2W0M-0001DN-Ny for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 13:08:22 -0500 Received: from ppp136034.ostnet.pl ([62.133.136.34]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2W0M-00075p-1h for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 13:08:22 -0500 Received: by 10.0.66.101 with SMTP id vAzdHWeFjVSXN; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 19:08:40 +0100 (GMT) Received: by 192.168.6.99 with SMTP id yATOkWKMoCjnCl.1574419757816; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 19:08:38 +0100 (GMT) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 19:08:35 +0100 From: "Kaisa MANEY" Reply-To: "Kaisa MANEY" Message-ID: <773406060855.476979896313@PcMall.com> To: Subject: utiwake MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="windows-1250"; reply-type=original X-Spam-Score: 3.9 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 8ac499381112328dd60aea5b1ff596ea hello ccamp-archive Don't let her laugh at nights on your inability to satisfy http://bestgoodguide.com Kaisa MANEY From ShaneleavenworthCarpenter@opulencesilksanddyes.com Wed Dec 12 13:55:39 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2Wk7-0005RJ-TE for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 13:55:39 -0500 Received: from [201.148.31.162] (helo=normamillan.neoris.cxnetworks.net) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2Wk7-00007b-Dw for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 13:55:39 -0500 Received: from heretic by opulencesilksanddyes.com with SMTP id DSyp22Haal for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 11:54:19 +0700 From: "Zachary Greene" To: Subject: We pay you to play. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7bac9cb154eb5790ae3b2913587a40de After thatit's only fun and winning. Players from the United States and around the world! Players from the United States and around the world! Best offer in gambling history . http://eurocasinoag.com/ From AldrillColon@spieleck.de Wed Dec 12 15:53:17 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2YZx-0001Tu-FI for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:53:17 -0500 Received: from [190.42.229.157] (helo=familia) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2YZw-0003Ri-Nj for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:53:17 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host31831187.spieleck.de (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id LuXaU3fK29.778691.HvY.GTA.5471493441593 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:51:23 +0500 Message-ID: <351fa01c83d00$fc2cd4f0$2101a8c0@familia> From: "Taylor Wise" To: Subject: Your order approved Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:51:23 +0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_351F6_01C83D00.FC2CD4F0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d16ce744298aacf98517bc7c108bd198 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_351F6_01C83D00.FC2CD4F0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Even if you have no erection problems Viagra would help you to make = better sex more often and to bring unimaginable plesure to her. Just = disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for action in 30 = minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking this = medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours! Package Quantity Price in your local drugstore* Our price LearnMoreNow 10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49 30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50 60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02 90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40 180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46 When you are young and stressed up… When you are aged and never give up… Viagra gives you confidence in any chance, every time. ------=_NextPart_000_351F6_01C83D00.FC2CD4F0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Viagra would=20 help you to make better sex more often and to bring unimaginable = plesure=20 to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for = action in=20 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking = this=20 medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Viagra gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_351F6_01C83D00.FC2CD4F0-- From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Wed Dec 12 18:16:51 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2aot-00063C-5z for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 18:16:51 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2aos-0006pO-79 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 18:16:50 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J2adj-00026g-Pm for ccamp-data@psg.com; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 23:05:19 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE, USER_IN_ALL_SPAM_TO autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [128.9.168.207] (helo=bosco.isi.edu) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J2adV-000253-Db for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 23:05:08 +0000 Received: by bosco.isi.edu (Postfix, from userid 70) id 5EE4FFF1FD; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:05:01 -0800 (PST) To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org Subject: RFC 5073 on IGP Routing Protocol Extensions for Discovery of Traffic Engineering Node Capabilities From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, ccamp@ops.ietf.org Message-Id: <20071212230501.5EE4FFF1FD@bosco.isi.edu> Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:05:01 -0800 (PST) Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 6cca30437e2d04f45110f2ff8dc1b1d5 A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 5073 Title: IGP Routing Protocol Extensions for Discovery of Traffic Engineering Node Capabilities Author: J.P. Vasseur, Ed., J.L. Le Roux, Ed. Status: Standards Track Date: December 2007 Mailbox: jpv@cisco.com, jeanlouis.leroux@orange-ftgroup.com Pages: 13 Characters: 27004 Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None I-D Tag: draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-05.txt URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5073.txt It is highly desired, in several cases, to take into account Traffic Engineering (TE) node capabilities during Multi Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineered Label Switched Path (TE-LSP) selection, such as, for instance, the capability to act as a branch Label Switching Router (LSR) of a Point-To-MultiPoint (P2MP) LSP. This requires advertising these capabilities within the Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP). For that purpose, this document specifies Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) and Intermediate System-Intermediate System (IS-IS) traffic engineering extensions for the advertisement of control plane and data plane traffic engineering node capabilities. [STANDARDS TRACK] This document is a product of the Common Control and Measurement Plane Working Group of the IETF. This is now a Proposed Standard Protocol. STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community,and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.Please refer to the current edition of the Internet Official Protocol Standards (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF list and the RFC-DIST list. Requests to be added to or deleted from the IETF distribution list should be sent to IETF-REQUEST@IETF.ORG. Requests to be added to or deleted from the RFC-DIST distribution list should be sent to RFC-DIST-REQUEST@RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Details on obtaining RFCs via FTP or EMAIL may be obtained by sending an EMAIL message to rfc-info@RFC-EDITOR.ORG with the message body help: ways_to_get_rfcs. For example: To: rfc-info@RFC-EDITOR.ORG Subject: getting rfcs help: ways_to_get_rfcs Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to RFC-Manager@RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. Submissions for Requests for Comments should be sent to RFC-EDITOR@RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Please consult RFC 2223, Instructions to RFC Authors, for further information. The RFC Editor Team USC/Information Sciences Institute ... From DanialmindanaoMoon@unisys.com Wed Dec 12 18:38:42 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2bA2-0003lN-8v for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 18:38:42 -0500 Received: from 81.203.180.16.dyn.user.ono.com ([81.203.180.16] helo=felixykmpr0i4o) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2bA1-0000jR-PC for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 18:38:42 -0500 Received: from intrude by unisys.com with SMTP id K9eHi3A5BL for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 00:37:54 -0100 From: "Blair Benton" To: Subject: Play your favorite games from the comfort of your home Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 3.7 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 7bac9cb154eb5790ae3b2913587a40de Get $999 you download our casino. When YOU WIN, we win! Players from the United States and around the world! Our safe, secure games will get you smiling when you start seeing dollars pouring in. http://eurocasinoag.com/ From bettie46milo@syssrc.com Wed Dec 12 22:59:47 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2fEh-0003wf-QY for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 22:59:47 -0500 Received: from [92.228.192.200] (helo=g228192200.adsl.alicedsl.de) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2fEg-0006sc-Gs for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Dec 2007 22:59:47 -0500 Message-ID: <000901c83d3c$040b83ae$b8f1018b@pumoggl> From: "brendon philip" To: "Emile Shoemaker" Subject: diamond Replicas, affordable prices rolex Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 02:12:20 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-Spam-Score: 4.6 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 2870a44b67ee17965ce5ad0177e150f4 Perfectly crafted luxury timepieces...the finest of products at the LOWEST prices!! http://rummyxbra.net/ From Gipson@aheco.com Thu Dec 13 00:16:01 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2gQT-0007EG-Rx for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 00:16:01 -0500 Received: from host183-43-static.29-87-b.business.telecomitalia.it ([87.29.43.183]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2gQS-0008IS-Ub for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 00:16:01 -0500 Received: from acer-c5ropxp63k ([116.163.39.197]:10928 "EHLO acer-c5ropxp63k" smtp-auth: TLS-CIPHER: TLS-PEER-CN1: ) by [87.29.43.183] with ESMTP id S22WROVKNFBLVUPH (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Dec 2007 06:16:26 +0100 Message-ID: <000401c83d47$47e791f0$b72b1d57@acerc5ropxp63k> From: "Nettie Gipson" To: Subject: scopi Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 06:16:13 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0003_01C83D4F.A9ABF9F0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b19722fc8d3865b147c75ae2495625f2 ------=_NextPart_000_0003_01C83D4F.A9ABF9F0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Good day ccamp-archive Become a s(e)'>
Good day ccamp-archive
Become a s(e)'>
http://goodbetterbizzed.com
Nettie Gipson
------=_NextPart_000_0003_01C83D4F.A9ABF9F0-- From rsqic7qwk@cableradionetwork.com Thu Dec 13 01:09:10 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2hFu-00084E-FI; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 01:09:10 -0500 Received: from aboo7.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl ([83.8.30.7] helo=mfcucrsn) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2hFt-0000jy-8h; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 01:09:10 -0500 To: From: "Lamonica Jerlene" Subject: #1 PharmacyOnNet sells Phentermin, Ambien, Codeine, ValiuXanassss.... zcpwx Message-ID: <8034y22448.10629k21312462@cableradionetwork.com> Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 07:06:07 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 071211-0, 2007-12-11), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Score: 3.6 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: cf4fa59384e76e63313391b70cd0dd25 We have every hard meds you need Phetermin Codeine Ambien Viagr Cia|i Xana Valiu & all Limited Offer, Order today http://kqwu.siboosted.com http://kraslt.siboosted.com From Kawamuraafec@option.co.il Thu Dec 13 06:29:46 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2mGA-0007T1-5E for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 06:29:46 -0500 Received: from [151.56.60.136] (helo=[151.56.60.136]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2mG8-0000eB-Kx for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 06:29:46 -0500 Received: from computer by option.co.il with ASMTP id 6793A170 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 12:30:18 +0100 Received: from computer ([109.185.166.52]) by option.co.il with ESMTP id 74D44803130C for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 12:30:18 +0100 Message-ID: <000801c83d7b$7d1ccb90$883c3897@computer> From: "Erdoan Kawamura" To: Subject: ylgnaj Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 12:29:56 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0005_01C83D83.DEE13390" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Spam-Score: 2.1 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464 ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C83D83.DEE13390 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi there ccamp-archive Re-New low-cost d'r/\g store http://goodflightguide.com Erdoan Kawamura ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C83D83.DEE13390 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi there ccamp-archive
Re-New low-cost d'r/\g store
http://goodflightguide.com=
Erdoan Kawamura
------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C83D83.DEE13390-- From bullshit886@et.ufpr.br Thu Dec 13 08:03:05 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2niT-0006tL-II for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 08:03:05 -0500 Received: from [81.213.210.96] (helo=dsl.dynamic8121321096.ttnet.net.tr) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2niS-0002f2-9C for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 08:03:05 -0500 Received: from notebook ([196.101.43.180] helo=notebook) by dsl.dynamic8121321096.ttnet.net.tr ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1xndxF-000CWB-pS for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 15:03:12 +0200 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 15:03:00 +0200 To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org From: "bullshit dddddd" Subject: c"urdnie Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 4.2 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: bb8eae9af85e4fcfe76f325e38493bf4 treat yourself to a penis enlargement present! http://www.djlkblo.com/ From Dalton457@et.ufpr.br Thu Dec 13 08:04:37 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2njx-0000Zb-20 for ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 08:04:37 -0500 Received: from [81.213.210.96] (helo=dsl.dynamic8121321096.ttnet.net.tr) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2njw-0002gG-25 for ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 08:04:36 -0500 Received: from notebook ([148.182.56.122] helo=notebook) by dsl.dynamic8121321096.ttnet.net.tr ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1tkFDN-000UHH-pP for ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 15:04:58 +0200 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 15:04:32 +0200 From: "Dalton mehmood" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: crabbe Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------050601040102060502060502" X-Spam-Score: 2.1 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8 --------------050601040102060502060502 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit bad news buddy, you got a small dickie! http://dnmotos.com/ --------------050601040102060502060502 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit bad news buddy, you got a small dickie! http://dnmotos.com/
--------------050601040102060502060502-- From DamianferneryHeath@martinfowler.com Thu Dec 13 09:34:04 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2p8W-0007KX-Py; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 09:34:04 -0500 Received: from ppp-58.9.126.224.revip2.asianet.co.th ([58.9.126.224] helo=net15) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2p8V-00055v-8o; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 09:34:04 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host32113419.martinfowler.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id oqOGgTog56.995103.w2o.to7.7497316632250 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:33:32 -0700 Message-ID: <1efa101c83d95$2f3f2cf0$7301a8c0@net15> From: "Leonardo Kramer" To: Cc: , =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Viagra would=20 help you to make better sex more often and to bring unimaginable = plesure=20 to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for = action in=20 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking = this=20 medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Viagra gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_1EF9D_01C83D95.2F3F2CF0-- From thjustified@metokote.com Thu Dec 13 11:41:58 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2r8I-0002k9-9f; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 11:41:58 -0500 Received: from [200.152.199.154] (helo=intranet.brasilmidiaexterior.com.br) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2r8H-0001Wr-FG; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 11:41:58 -0500 Received: from invoice68 ([143.22.129.208]) by 9ac798c8metokote.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id 0428979093394 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 14:40:03 -0200 Message-ID: <001101c83d96$0bb61450$06cc9304@invoice68> From: protective To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org Subject: gsymposium Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 14:40:03 -0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000E_01C83D96.0BB61450" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.2962 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1081 X-Spam-Score: 0.4 (/) X-Scan-Signature: a7d6aff76b15f3f56fcb94490e1052e4 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C83D96.0BB61450 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable There are also studies that indicate that there are increased physical technique and expression. I believe that technology is foundation for living forms. Simulating biological growth can ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C83D96.0BB61450 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

contemporary artists benefit from information that can, through

Are you wanting a bi/gg er pe \nis?

As seen on TV

Ov \er 740,000 Men aro /und the world are already sat \isfied
Gain 3+ Inc /hes In Len /gth
Inc \rease Your Pe /nis Wid /th (Gir \th) By u/p-to 23%
100% Safe To Take, With NO Side Effe /cts
No Pumps! No Surgery! No Exercises!

contemporary artists benefit from information that can, through
------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C83D96.0BB61450-- From Rogelio-ion@classicdesignchairs.com Thu Dec 13 14:53:56 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2u84-0005z9-Fr for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 14:53:56 -0500 Received: from [213.195.237.1] (helo=[213.195.237.1]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2u83-0007h0-QV for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 14:53:56 -0500 Received: from majkl-fd2773640 ([173.110.169.198] helo=majkl-fd2773640) by [213.195.237.1] ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1yuknA-000ALI-YP for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:54:32 +0100 Message-ID: <000601c83dc1$e4753c50$01edc3d5@majklfd2773640> From: "Rogelio ion" To: Subject: e'puisan Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:53:55 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0005_01C83DCA.4639A450" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 071213-0, 13.12.2007), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Score: 2.1 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 97adf591118a232206bdb5a27b217034 ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C83DCA.4639A450 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Compliments ccamp-archive Worried about your man's PE size and hardens, but not know how to tell = him 'baut it? http://sugarthe.com Rogelio ion ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C83DCA.4639A450 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Compliments ccamp-archive
Worried about your man's PE size and hardens, = but not=20 know how to tell him 'baut it?
http://sugarthe.com
Rogelio ion
------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C83DCA.4639A450-- From MarciasaoSnell@capterra.com Thu Dec 13 15:20:01 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2uXJ-0004iN-RC; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 15:20:01 -0500 Received: from host217-43-217-191.range217-43.btcentralplus.com ([217.43.217.191] helo=cel293.home) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2uXJ-0008Nn-BR; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 15:20:01 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host09373647.capterra.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id 46KbUtss04.913072.XMV.zw2.5618389929370 for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:20:14 +0000 Message-ID: <95e501c83dc5$96375740$4001a8c0@cel293> From: "Colleen Snell" To: Subject: Your order approved Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:20:14 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_95E1_01C83DC5.96375740" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d16ce744298aacf98517bc7c108bd198 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_95E1_01C83DC5.96375740 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Even if you have no erection problems Viagra would help you to make = better sex more often and to bring unimaginable plesure to her. Just = disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for action in 30 = minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking this = medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours! Package Quantity Price in your local drugstore* Our price LearnMoreNow 10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49 30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50 60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02 90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40 180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46 When you are young and stressed up… When you are aged and never give up… Viagra gives you confidence in any chance, every time. ------=_NextPart_000_95E1_01C83DC5.96375740 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Viagra would=20 help you to make better sex more often and to bring unimaginable = plesure=20 to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for = action in=20 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking = this=20 medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Viagra gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_95E1_01C83DC5.96375740-- From McCoinahkyt@whlhotel.com Thu Dec 13 16:04:21 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2vED-00028F-MV for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:04:21 -0500 Received: from [92.228.53.252] (helo=[78.52.83.182]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2vEC-0001gl-Od for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:04:21 -0500 Received: from y-fdeni2o6wkjl6 ([100.114.21.34] helo=y-fdeni2o6wkjl6) by [78.52.83.182] ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1MovhR-000DFG-GI for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 22:05:09 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 22:04:40 +0100 From: "dongjin McCoin" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org Subject: wun-jou Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------070704070605010400070100" X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7d33c50f3756db14428398e2bdedd581 --------------070704070605010400070100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resolve any issues concerning your package growth! Perfect solution is here! http://www.magerpg.com/ --------------070704070605010400070100 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resolve any issues concerning your package growth! Perfect solution
is here! http://www.magerpg.com/
--------------070704070605010400070100-- From PAUL@gft.cn Thu Dec 13 16:52:45 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2vz3-0004My-82 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:52:45 -0500 Received: from host179-155-dynamic.2-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it ([79.2.155.179]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2vz2-000360-2t for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:52:44 -0500 Received: by 10.65.115.71 with SMTP id eGCZRjvOtNljt; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 22:52:47 +0100 (GMT) Received: by 192.168.132.167 with SMTP id mwmKfiQFeswJhi.3680787323250; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 22:52:45 +0100 (GMT) Message-ID: <000301c83dd2$7cdaf510$bc743b52@your6caa4fba36> From: "arvy PAUL" To: Subject: stliuqde Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 22:52:42 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0003_01C83DDA.DE9F5D10" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Spam-Score: 2.1 (++) X-Scan-Signature: b19722fc8d3865b147c75ae2495625f2 ------=_NextPart_000_0003_01C83DDA.DE9F5D10 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Good day ccamp-archive Bigger size =3D> more sensitivity and s(e)>'
Good day ccamp-archive
Bigger size =3D> more sensitivity and = s(e)>'
http://waybegan.com
arvy PAUL
------=_NextPart_000_0003_01C83DDA.DE9F5D10-- From CassiesymptomThorpe@bloggingstocks.com Thu Dec 13 18:07:48 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2x9g-0001nt-K7; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 18:07:48 -0500 Received: from p3017-ipad03hiraide.tochigi.ocn.ne.jp ([220.104.57.17] helo=diaz) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2x9g-0005H8-6Q; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 18:07:48 -0500 Received: from housewares by bloggingstocks.com with SMTP id YWCAOzoK3b for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 08:07:33 -0900 From: "Consuelo Shook" To: Cc: , Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J34PO-0000JM-P0 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 01:52:30 -0500 Received: from host-81-190-194-80.gizycko.mm.pl ([81.190.194.80] helo=k.gizycko.mm.pl) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J34PL-0005rF-Vx for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 01:52:28 -0500 Received: from k [183.60.60.220] (port=16726 helo=k) by 50c2be513ammagazine.com with ESMTP id 338231911FE2 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 07:52:30 +0100 Message-ID: <001601c83e26$472add50$01c08534@k> From: Eli To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org Subject: kretain Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 07:52:30 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0013_01C83E26.472ADD50" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2720.181 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2720.1106 X-Spam-Score: 0.4 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9ed51c9d1356100bce94f1ae4ec616a9 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C83E26.472ADD50 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1250" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable peoples' senses of self and creativity. While someone is probably the possibilities of cures for the earth s illnesses and human cancer rates for people regularly exposed to radiation and an ------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C83E26.472ADD50 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1250" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

and not the designer itself. Architects and draftspeople now have

Are you wanting a bi/gg er pe \nis?

As seen on TV

Ov \er 751,000 Men aro /und the world are already sat \isfied
Gain 4+ Inc /hes In Len /gth
Inc \rease Your Pe /nis Wid /th (Gir \th) By u/p-to 27%
100% Safe To Take, With NO Side Effe /cts
No Pumps! No Surgery! No Exercises!

far as I know, and what I am doing within it, as a part of it so
= ------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C83E26.472ADD50-- From ccampb12@mix.wvu.edu Fri Dec 14 03:45:39 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J36As-0006DU-VU for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 03:45:39 -0500 Received: from suchdol1.miramo.cz ([217.196.211.50]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J36As-0008FT-8K for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 03:45:38 -0500 Content-Return: allowed X-Mailer: CME-V6.5.4.3; MSN Received: (qmail 8891 by uid 829); Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:45:39 +0100 Message-Id: <20071214104539.8893.qmail@suchdol1.miramo.cz> To: Subject: 25% Off Coupon Inside From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 2.2 (++) X-Scan-Signature: bdc523f9a54890b8a30dd6fd53d5d024 6 Days Left for FREE DELIVERY by Christmas!
Having trouble viewing this e-mail? Click here
To ensure you receive your emails.

- Advertisement -
Limited Time Offer
BOOKS:DVD :MUSIC:B&N JR.: GIFT CARDS:HOLIDAY CATALOG
6 Days Left for Free Delivery by Christmas. Online Only. See Details.
SAVE 25% ON ONE ITEM*. Offer Expires December 18th. Finish up your holiday shopping with 25% off one item, both in stores and online.
Save
25%
From wursts@seeourtimetables.com Fri Dec 14 06:43:30 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J38x0-0005di-K5 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 06:43:30 -0500 Received: from cpe-024-211-245-004.nc.res.rr.com ([24.211.245.4] helo=ggixhsp) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J38wy-0003Ul-8C for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 06:43:28 -0500 Message-ID: <000801c83e44$fa69e000$0100007f@utcbw> From: "Henry Carter" To: Subject: Re: Christmas Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 06:43:45 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 12.0.4210 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-Spam-Score: 2.8 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 856eb5f76e7a34990d1d457d8e8e5b7f scansoft dragon naturallyspeaking 7 preferred - 39 cakewalk project 5 - 59 symantec norton antivirus 10.1 for mac - 29 2008 microsoft office beta for mac - 79 adobe after effects cs3 - 69 abbyy finereader 8.0 professional multilanguage - 49 avid liquid pro 7 - 69 office professional xp - 49 microsoft money home & business 7 - 39 zend studio - 49 apollo divx2dvd divx to dvd creator v3.3.0 - 29 autodesk autocad 2008 - 129 autodesk building systems 2006 - 129 discreet combustion 4.0 for windows - 69 readiris pro 11.5 for mac - 39 ms windows 2003 enterprise server - 69 paste cheapxp4pc .com in Internet Explorer From YuriCoppola@efamilytherapy.net Fri Dec 14 09:16:14 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3BKo-0006hI-02 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:16:14 -0500 Received: from adjh123.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl ([79.184.215.123] helo=adie189.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3BKn-0007El-8U for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:16:13 -0500 Received: from avs01 ([101.160.181.13]:1883 "EHLO avs01" smtp-auth: TLS-CIPHER: TLS-PEER-CN1: ) by adie189.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl with ESMTP id S22EYACYSMSFITGJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:16:35 +0100 Message-ID: <000b01c83e5b$e10f9520$bdbab84f@avs01> From: "Yuri Coppola" To: Subject: gardenci Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:16:11 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0009_01C83E64.42D3FD20" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Spam-Score: 3.4 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464 ------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C83E64.42D3FD20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Compliments ccamp-archive you are looking to buy sleeping pills? http://soonfun.com Yuri Coppola ------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C83E64.42D3FD20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Compliments ccamp-archive
you are looking to buy sleeping = pills?
http://soonfun.com
Yuri Coppola
------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C83E64.42D3FD20-- From Gilroy431@airspedexpress.com Fri Dec 14 10:39:49 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3Cdh-0002GA-Qz for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:39:49 -0500 Received: from broadband-dynamic-central405.connect.com.fj ([210.7.5.149]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3Cdg-0000lp-Ni for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:39:49 -0500 Received: from winxp ([111.150.49.121] helo=winxp) by Broadband-Dynamic-Central405.connect.com.fj ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1lxVuY-000YLM-uz for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 03:40:16 +1200 Message-ID: <197E9600.C622E0BE@airspedexpress.com> Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 03:39:38 +1200 From: "Gilroy rixie" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org Subject: ovattol Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 2.1 (++) X-Scan-Signature: bb8eae9af85e4fcfe76f325e38493bf4 stop wondering because now you really can make it big! http://www.rezaslan.com/ From traninahq@airspedexpress.com Fri Dec 14 10:54:01 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3CrR-0000jE-L1 for ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:54:01 -0500 Received: from broadband-dynamic-central405.connect.com.fj ([210.7.5.149]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3CrQ-000168-QY for ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:54:01 -0500 Received: from winxp ([103.106.90.33] helo=winxp) by Broadband-Dynamic-Central405.connect.com.fj ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1QBMnc-000YMO-xS for ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 03:54:15 +1200 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 03:53:51 +1200 From: "jeffrie tranin" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: ournment Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------000002020506000705010802" X-Spam-Score: 2.1 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8 --------------000002020506000705010802 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit no more limp dick, you'll be rock solid on virility pills http://www.rfldubai.com/ --------------000002020506000705010802 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit no more limp dick, you'll be rock solid on virility pills http://www.rfldubai.com/
--------------000002020506000705010802-- From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Fri Dec 14 10:57:14 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3CuY-0000IR-02 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:57:14 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3CuX-0000d5-Fr for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:57:13 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J3CXi-000Kr1-0H for ccamp-data@psg.com; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:33:38 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [209.85.198.191] (helo=rv-out-0910.google.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J3CXb-000KqH-4x for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:33:36 +0000 Received: by rv-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id b22so1135555rvf.41 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 07:33:30 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; bh=sAfRaOYLK1pU2jGd4aS3oncsH/UOkja9jTukwnjjXyw=; b=n2P1YIR3z0IVpAITUaHmmcQy2oo7b/xTZmMt4l8WisslOQpt9pPQNx/WCsTGzZWdQYNFLdyfGmpN2PS4d2B4326eHIyEIOLQIUSs5/MaWoRy//RbTqYVlgv8QmYLkCRL40Q+WE5ceDSErCXRmXR0a7aQ6+09jPZoOnb4EfpGM1w= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; b=Sa9JdN3lwb3n3ZeWTFxns/1U1Ey6xO4E0qWDwAH7NqLlfgvj/UI0Er0dGjt09Ux6kGDOAARIm/mhY+3uHOCidTaM8I96LCpMTdbZLapVUDHFG5uhxAeFmLQwxyaETf51jgz1oKkN5cMcqZFVdjc06RMg4XZDFhmQfYPb0dmFcCo= Received: by 10.140.169.4 with SMTP id r4mr1951413rve.131.1197646410745; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 07:33:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.141.33.18 with HTTP; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 07:33:30 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:33:30 -0500 From: "Aaron Daubman" To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: Question on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-vcat-lcas and VCG Member Sharing MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: c1c65599517f9ac32519d043c37c5336 Greetings, Apologies in advance if it is inappropriate to pose such questions here... I have been looking over draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-vcat-lcas-03, as well as G.707 and G.7042, and have not been able to reconcile how the member sharing functionality would be accomplished. Am I understanding this feature correctly: - A member that was not previously part of a VCG may be hitlessly added to a VCG - A member of another VCG (presumably IDLE) may be removed from that VCG and added to another as demand dictates - There could be a pool of provisioned but IDLE members of some 'shared' VCG that can be added to or removed from others as necessary If the above is (basically) correct, what functionality would carry this out? I assume that one would have to modify the GID of such members on the fly... and LCAS doesn't seem to currently maintain this functionality. Would this be left up to the implementation of the NMS if it supports GMPLS, or are (portions) of these features being added to LCAS? In particular, I am wondering what signaling in G.7042 would allow the addition of a new member to an existing VCG as stated below: """ Following the addition of the new label to the LSP, LCAS may be used in-band to add the new label into the existing VCAT group. LCAS signaling for this function is described in [ITU-T-G.7042]. """ As far as I have been able to tell, LCAS currently can only modify pre-existing members of a VCG. I have not been able to identify any functionality which would allow a new member to be added to a VCG - am I missing something? Perhaps I am misunderstand LCAS' ADD functionality. It is my understanding that an LCAS ADD does not actually add a new member to a VCG, but merely sets an IDLE member of a VCG to become active in the VCG (e.g. NORM/EOS). Regardless of whether a VCG member is IDLE or in-use, it will share the same GID as all other members of the VCG. Any clarification would be much appreciated. Thank you, Aaron From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Fri Dec 14 11:32:45 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3DSv-0001NI-ON for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 11:32:45 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3DSq-0001kq-HI for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 11:32:45 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J3DEP-000PbF-61 for ccamp-data@psg.com; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 16:17:45 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE, RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [66.226.64.2] (helo=pro.abac.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J3DDi-000PW1-BL for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 16:17:29 +0000 Received: from [192.168.0.131] (c-71-202-41-42.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [71.202.41.42]) (authenticated bits=0) by pro.abac.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id lBEGGsqp035011 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 08:16:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gregb@grotto-networking.com) Message-ID: <4762AC75.3090304@grotto-networking.com> Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 08:16:53 -0800 From: Greg Bernstein User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ccamp Subject: On Labels for Wavelength Switched Optical Networks... Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040908000103070203060209" Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 76c7db407a166e4c39f35d8215d8dd32 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------040908000103070203060209 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi folks, at the Vancouver meeting the lambda label format of Otani, et. al. draft-otani-ccamp-gmpls-lambda-labels-01.txt [Otani] was presented for a second time and a few new issues seemed to arise. I'm writing this note to see if we can resolve these on the list so this work can move forward, since the label format is valuable, in general, to the control of wavelength switched optical networks (WSON). First, a general 32 bit lambda label has been defined in RFC3471. This previous label does not directly relate to either the wavelength or frequency of the light used in a lambda LSP in a standardized way (folks can use the 32 bits as they see fit). To come up with a completely general "lambda label" one could/should define both a (i) wavelength label specified in meters and (ii) a frequency label specified in Hertz (Hz). These could be specified either with a 32 bit IEEE floating point number or via a suitable 32 bit integer by suitably adjusting the base units. We could represent the frequency via a 32 bit integer in MHz, then a 193.1THz light source could be characterized by the integer 193,100,000. Similarly we could represent the wavelength label via a 32 bit integer in pico meters (10-12 meters), then a 1550nm wavelength could be characterized by the integer 1,550,000. Now any of the previous formats could be used with the 32 bit lambda label already defined. The problem here is to pick a format for interoperability and compatibility with potentially common wavelength switched control operations. Issues with the previously mentioned formats: (a) While floating point numbers provide great flexibility, as a label they have issues when it comes to comparison operations. (b) An integer format with a suitably scaled exponent is relatively simple and just leaves the choice of "exponent" to be decided. (c) Neither format contains any "context" information about the WDM system in general. The format proposed in [Otani]. avoids the above three issues and enhances common control plane operations as follows: (a) The format is integer based, hence avoids issues with floating point comparisons. (b) The format is based on the widely recognized ITU-T standard grids (ITU-T G.694.1 and .2) and fosters interoperability more than potentially any other choice. (c) The ITU-T grids come in various widths and hence have an inherent growth path. (d) The ITU-T grids come in both frequency (G.694.1) and wavelength (G.694.2) flavored versions an both are incorporated in the [Otani] label format. (e) The format includes information on the grid spacing which is important WDM context information useful in many label selection processes. For example a tunable laser associated with a 50GHz spacing WDM system could specify acceptable label range via the inclusive range label set mechanism. Note that only those frequencies (labels) that fall on the grid are supported and not intermediate frequencies. At the CCAMP WG meeting in Vancouver it was pointed out (by Lou Berger) that since a lambda label already exists and that existing implementations may make use of it that the proposed label of [Otani] would be better off referred to as a "G.694 label". With such a change I think that this label format (and accompanying draft) should move forward as a working group document. Comments, suggestions, issues? Regards Greg B. -- =================================================== Dr Greg Bernstein, Grotto Networking (510) 573-2237 --------------040908000103070203060209 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi folks, at the Vancouver meeting the lambda label format of Otani, et. al. draft-otani-ccamp-gmpls-lambda-labels-01.txt [Otani] was presented for a second time and a few new issues seemed to arise. I'm writing this note to see if we can resolve these on the list so this work can move forward, since the label format is valuable, in general, to the control of wavelength switched optical networks (WSON).

First, a general 32 bit lambda label has been defined in RFC3471.  This previous label does not directly relate to either the wavelength or frequency of the light used in a lambda LSP in a standardized way (folks can use the 32 bits as they see fit).
To come up with a completely general "lambda label" one could/should define both a (i) wavelength label specified in meters and (ii) a frequency label specified in Hertz (Hz).  These could be specified either with a 32 bit IEEE floating point number or via a suitable 32 bit integer by suitably adjusting the base units.  We could represent the frequency via a 32 bit integer in MHz, then a 193.1THz light source could be characterized by the integer 193,100,000. Similarly we could represent the wavelength label via a 32 bit integer in pico meters (10-12 meters), then a 1550nm wavelength could be characterized by the integer 1,550,000.

 Now any of the previous formats could be used with the 32 bit lambda label already defined.  The problem here is to pick a format for interoperability and compatibility with potentially common wavelength switched control operations.
Issues with the previously mentioned formats:

(a)    While floating point numbers provide great flexibility, as a label they have issues when it comes to comparison operations. 

(b)   An integer format with a suitably scaled exponent is relatively simple and just leaves the choice of “exponent” to be decided.

(c)    Neither format contains any “context” information about the WDM system in general.

The format proposed in [Otani]. avoids the above three issues and enhances common control plane operations as follows:

(a)    The format is integer based, hence avoids issues with floating point comparisons.

(b)   The format is based on the widely recognized ITU-T standard grids (ITU-T G.694.1 and .2) and fosters interoperability more than potentially any other choice. 

(c)    The ITU-T grids come in various widths and hence have an inherent growth path.

(d)   The ITU-T grids come in both frequency (G.694.1) and wavelength (G.694.2) flavored versions an both are incorporated in the [Otani] label format.

(e)    The format includes information on the grid spacing which is important WDM context information useful in many label selection processes.  For example a tunable laser associated with a 50GHz spacing WDM system could specify acceptable label range via the inclusive range label set mechanism.  Note that only those frequencies (labels) that fall on the grid are supported and not intermediate frequencies.

 
At the CCAMP WG meeting in Vancouver it was pointed out (by Lou Berger) that since a lambda label already exists and that existing implementations may make use of it that the proposed label of [Otani] would be better off referred to as a “G.694 label”. With such a change I think that this label format (and accompanying draft) should move forward as a working group document.

Comments, suggestions, issues?

Regards

Greg B.

-- 
===================================================
Dr Greg Bernstein, Grotto Networking (510) 573-2237
--------------040908000103070203060209-- From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Fri Dec 14 11:57:50 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3DrC-0001M6-Un for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 11:57:50 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3DrC-0002In-B1 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 11:57:50 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J3DYW-0002e8-T4 for ccamp-data@psg.com; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 16:38:32 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [66.226.64.2] (helo=pro.abac.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J3DYU-0002dX-7d for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 16:38:31 +0000 Received: from [192.168.0.131] (c-71-202-41-42.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [71.202.41.42]) (authenticated bits=0) by pro.abac.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id lBEGcK0b070811 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 14 Dec 2007 08:38:22 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gregb@grotto-networking.com) Message-ID: <4762B17B.5080308@grotto-networking.com> Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 08:38:19 -0800 From: Greg Bernstein User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Aaron Daubman CC: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: Question on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-vcat-lcas and VCG Member Sharing References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 3002fc2e661cd7f114cb6bae92fe88f1 Hi Aaron, see comments below. Aaron Daubman wrote: > Greetings, > > Apologies in advance if it is inappropriate to pose such questions here... > > I have been looking over draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-vcat-lcas-03, as well > as G.707 and G.7042, and have not been able to reconcile how the > member sharing functionality would be accomplished. > > Am I understanding this feature correctly: > - A member that was not previously part of a VCG may be hitlessly added to a VCG > Yes. > - A member of another VCG (presumably IDLE) may be removed from that > VCG and added to another as demand dictates > Yes. > - There could be a pool of provisioned but IDLE members of some > 'shared' VCG that can be added to or removed from others as necessary > No. The pool is of server layer connections between the same "endpoints", that could be put into one VCG or another. > If the above is (basically) correct, what functionality would carry this out? > > I assume that one would have to modify the GID of such members on the > fly... and LCAS doesn't seem to currently maintain this functionality. > --> GID == Group IDentification, a pseudo random bit sequence that is used to identify one LCAS VCAT group from another and transmitted in the LCAS control packet from source to sink. This "control packet" is sent in overhead bytes/bits that accompany the server layer signal. It is the source LCAS entities responsibility to set this information not GMPLS signaling. After successfully establishing the lower layer connection via GMPLS, the internal LCAS entity at the source should be notified so that it can set its value. How this would be done is out of scope of the draft and an internal matter. > Would this be left up to the implementation of the NMS if it supports > GMPLS, or are (portions) of these features being added to LCAS? > --> Either the NMS(?) software or control plane software supporting GMPLS would need to talk to the LCAS entity. > In particular, I am wondering what signaling in G.7042 would allow the > addition of a new member to an existing VCG as stated below: > """ > Following the addition of the new label to the LSP, LCAS may be used > in-band to add the new label into the existing VCAT group. LCAS > signaling for this function is described in [ITU-T-G.7042]. > """ > > As far as I have been able to tell, LCAS currently can only modify > pre-existing members of a VCG. I have not been able to identify any > functionality which would allow a new member to be added to a VCG - am > I missing something? > --> GMPLS can set up connections. LCAS is used to add them to a group. > Perhaps I am misunderstand LCAS' ADD functionality. It is my > understanding that an LCAS ADD does not actually add a new member to a > VCG, but merely sets an IDLE member of a VCG to become active in the > VCG (e.g. NORM/EOS). Regardless of whether a VCG member is IDLE or > in-use, it will share the same GID as all other members of the VCG. > --> Yes. A bit of a misunderstanding. As you say you'd first need the LCAS entity to set the GID (so we know this connection should be part of the group) and when that's successful we should be in the IDLE state and from their we can issue the ADD message. The key is that LCAS can't set up a new connection only put an existing connection into use (we use GMPLS to set up the connection). > Any clarification would be much appreciated. > Hope this helps. Greg B. > Thank you, > Aaron > > > -- =================================================== Dr Greg Bernstein, Grotto Networking (510) 573-2237 From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Fri Dec 14 12:19:14 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3EBu-00064K-SD for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 12:19:14 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3EBt-0002oF-74 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 12:19:14 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J3Dz3-00063e-RS for ccamp-data@psg.com; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:05:57 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [47.129.242.57] (helo=zcars04f.nortel.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J3Dz0-00062v-RM for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:05:56 +0000 Received: from zharhxm1.corp.nortel.com (zharhxm1.corp.nortel.com [47.165.48.149]) by zcars04f.nortel.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id lBEH5lA07303; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:05:48 GMT X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Question on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-vcat-lcas and VCG Member Sharing Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:05:47 -0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Question on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-vcat-lcas and VCG Member Sharing Thread-Index: Acg+aos7kmLW3KR9R36NDCMFvbrOkgABOz8g References: From: "Trevor Wilson" To: "Aaron Daubman" , Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: b132cb3ed2d4be2017585bf6859e1ede Aaron, Please see my responses in-line below; annotated by [TW on/TW off] Regards, Trevor Trevor Wilson Nortel Networks (UK) Tel: +44 2890 363701 ESN: 751 3701 E-mail: wilsont@nortel.com Confidentiality Notice: This message and any attachments may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If you have reason to believe that you are not the intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering this message to an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have reason to believe that you are not the intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering this message to an intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. -----Original Message----- From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Aaron Daubman Sent: 14 December 2007 15:34 To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: Question on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-vcat-lcas and VCG Member Sharing Greetings, Apologies in advance if it is inappropriate to pose such questions here... I have been looking over draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-vcat-lcas-03, as well as G.707 and G.7042, and have not been able to reconcile how the member sharing functionality would be accomplished. Am I understanding this feature correctly: - A member that was not previously part of a VCG may be hitlessly added to a VCG [TW on] Correct [TW off] - A member of another VCG (presumably IDLE) may be removed from that VCG and added to another as demand dictates [TW on] Correct [TW off] - There could be a pool of provisioned but IDLE members of some 'shared' VCG that can be added to or removed from others as necessary [TW on] Hmmm.... A VCG member, even in the IDLE state is still a member of ONE VCG. It can of course be removed from that VCG and provisioned into another VCG. This is outside the scope of the LCAS Recommendation G.7042.This movement from one VCG to another VCG is a management action and does not require the use of the LCAS protocol. [TW off] If the above is (basically) correct, what functionality would carry this out? I assume that one would have to modify the GID of such members on the fly... and LCAS doesn't seem to currently maintain this functionality. [TW on] All members of a VCG will have the same GID. If a member belongs to another VCG it will have a different GID. Only active VCG member's GIDs will be used at the source. [TW off] Would this be left up to the implementation of the NMS if it supports GMPLS, or are (portions) of these features being added to LCAS? [TW on] Allocation of a member to a VCG is a management function and not part pf the LCAS protocol. [TW off] In particular, I am wondering what signaling in G.7042 would allow the addition of a new member to an existing VCG as stated below: """ Following the addition of the new label to the LSP, LCAS may be used in-band to add the new label into the existing VCAT group. LCAS signaling for this function is described in [ITU-T-G.7042]. """ [TW on] After a member is provisioned to the VCG it will be in the IDLE state; thereafter it can be ADDed to the VCG active group by the ADD command. [TW on] As far as I have been able to tell, LCAS currently can only modify pre-existing members of a VCG. I have not been able to identify any functionality which would allow a new member to be added to a VCG - am I missing something? [TW on] No. You haven't missed anything. As stated previously in my reply: inclusion of a member into a VCG is a management function initially put into the IDLE state and thereafter ADDed to the active VCG by the ADD command. [TW off] Perhaps I am misunderstand LCAS' ADD functionality. It is my understanding that an LCAS ADD does not actually add a new member to a VCG, but merely sets an IDLE member of a VCG to become active in the VCG (e.g. NORM/EOS). Regardless of whether a VCG member is IDLE or in-use, it will share the same GID as all other members of the VCG. [TW on] Correct] TW off] Any clarification would be much appreciated. Thank you, Aaron From nrate@denmat.com Fri Dec 14 12:27:40 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3EK4-0001Y0-FH; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 12:27:40 -0500 Received: from [118.232.194.55] (helo=denmat.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3EK3-0003na-5J; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 12:27:40 -0500 Received: from J [199.239.193.240] (port=45809 helo=J) by 37c2e876denmat.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with SMTP id f1QRLCAW819760 for ; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 01:29:10 +0800 Message-ID: <001401c83eb9$e453ace0$0189ab54@J> From: Ivan Bermudez To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org Subject: iusually Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 01:29:10 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0011_01C83EB9.E453ACE0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.3790.2869 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.181 X-Spam-Score: 0.4 (/) X-Scan-Signature: a7d6aff76b15f3f56fcb94490e1052e4 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0011_01C83EB9.E453ACE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable the stories there used to be about computers? The only people who like to live with out having to lock my doors or any number of can be sent and received at very rapid rate. As of yet, ISDN is ------=_NextPart_000_0011_01C83EB9.E453ACE0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

motorway footbridge, in theatrical protest at the tabloid press.

Are you wanting a bi/gg er pe \nis?

As seen on TV

Ov \er 779,000 Men aro /und the world are already sat \isfied
Gain 2+ Inc /hes In Len /gth
Inc \rease Your Pe /nis Wid /th (Gir \th) By u/p-to 20%
100% Safe To Take, With NO Side Effe /cts
No Pumps! No Surgery! No Exercises!

meaning were put in situations where they had to pretend that
------=_NextPart_000_0011_01C83EB9.E453ACE0-- From info-ljublijana.com@pharmaintelligence.com Fri Dec 14 13:14:58 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3F3q-0005Yy-9z for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 13:14:58 -0500 Received: from 82-131-136-28.pool.invitel.hu ([82.131.136.28] helo=umuibjum) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3F3p-0004yL-4Z for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 13:14:58 -0500 Message-ID: <000901c83e7d$3325ab80$0100007f@twmxf> From: "Oscar Barnes" To: Subject: She will love you more than any other guy Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 19:14:54 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001D_01C83E7D.3325AB80" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2905 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962 X-Spam-Score: 4.7 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: f60d0f7806b0c40781eee6b9cd0b2135 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_001D_01C83E7D.3325AB80 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_001_003A_01C83E7D.3325AB80" ------=_NextPart_001_003A_01C83E7D.3325AB80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Info attached or here: http://www.folgurn.com/ ----- Dear Lord, she wasnt making an Make way, make way. The shrill Lord, she was short. The top o Nicholaa didnt argue. She show ------=_NextPart_001_003A_01C83E7D.3325AB80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello

------=_NextPart_001_003A_01C83E7D.3325AB80-- ------=_NextPart_000_001D_01C83E7D.3325AB80 Content-Type: image/jpg; name="img68.jpg" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: ------=_NextPart_000_001D_01C83E7D.3325AB80-- From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Fri Dec 14 14:23:13 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3G7t-00035a-Ls for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 14:23:13 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3G7t-0007KF-35 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 14:23:13 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J3FvU-000LP7-OL for ccamp-data@psg.com; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 19:10:24 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DATE_IN_PAST_03_06, RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [62.179.121.50] (helo=viefep32-int.chello.at) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J3Fv7-000LKQ-EG for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 19:10:13 +0000 Received: from [192.168.17.2] (really [80.56.44.70]) by viefep32-int.chello.at (InterMail vM.7.08.02.02 201-2186-121-104-20070414) with ESMTP id <20071214190756.CWQD17442.viefep32-int.chello.at@[192.168.17.2]>; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 20:07:56 +0100 Message-ID: <4762AA56.6050207@chello.nl> Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:07:50 +0100 From: Huub van Helvoort User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Aaron Daubman CC: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: Question on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-vcat-lcas and VCG Member Sharing References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: 1.4 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 32b73d73e8047ed17386f9799119ce43 Hello Aaron, See my replies in-line [hvh]: > I have been looking over draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-vcat-lcas-03, as well > as G.707 and G.7042, and have not been able to reconcile how the > member sharing functionality would be accomplished. > > Am I understanding this feature correctly: > - A member that was not previously part of a VCG may be hitlessly added to a VCG [hvh] an LSP only becomes member of a VCG if it is assigned to that particalar VCG by the management system (usinf ASON/GMPLS). When assigned it will have the IDLE state. > - A member of another VCG (presumably IDLE) may be removed from that > VCG and added to another as demand dictates [hvh] actually this will involve two steps: - remove (= unassign) the member from one VGG by mamnagement - add (= assign) the member to (another) VCG by management You are right in assuming that only IDLE members should be removed, although the LCAS protocol is robust enough to withstand removal of NORM/EOS?DNU members. > - There could be a pool of provisioned but IDLE members of some > 'shared' VCG that can be added to or removed from others as necessary [hvh] right, if you mean that the path is provisioned > If the above is (basically) correct, what functionality would carry this out? [hvh] the management sytem, note that this has to be perfromed at both ends (source AND sink) of the VCG. Note also that the (un-)asignment is NOT supported by the LCAS protocol. > I assume that one would have to modify the GID of such members on the > fly... and LCAS doesn't seem to currently maintain this functionality. [hvh] No, as soon as an LSP bcomes a member of a VCG the GID will be inserted automatically by the termination function, it does not have to be provisioned. Added members will always have the IDLE state. > Would this be left up to the implementation of the NMS if it supports > GMPLS, or are (portions) of these features being added to LCAS? [hvh] as mentioned above (un-)assignemnt is initiated by mangement the LCAS procedure does the hitless delete/add of a member (payload). > In particular, I am wondering what signaling in G.7042 would allow the > addition of a new member to an existing VCG as stated below: > """ > Following the addition of the new label to the LSP, LCAS may be used > in-band to add the new label into the existing VCAT group. LCAS > signaling for this function is described in [ITU-T-G.7042]. > """ [hvh] this is the last step, the LCAS function takes care of the hitless addition by synchronising source and sink. > As far as I have been able to tell, LCAS currently can only modify > pre-existing members of a VCG. I have not been able to identify any > functionality which would allow a new member to be added to a VCG - am > I missing something? [hvh] the assigning of an LSP to a VCG is management reponsability it will then become member of that VCG. The addition/removal of a member for active participation in the VCG is initiated by management and finished by the LCAS protocol. > Perhaps I am misunderstand LCAS' ADD functionality. It is my > understanding that an LCAS ADD does not actually add a new member to a > VCG, but merely sets an IDLE member of a VCG to become active in the > VCG (e.g. NORM/EOS). Regardless of whether a VCG member is IDLE or > in-use, it will share the same GID as all other members of the VCG. [hvh] your understanding is right. > Any clarification would be much appreciated. I hope I did, if you need more clarification you can find it on the site below. Cheers, Huub. -- ================================================================ http://www.van-helvoort.eu/ ================================================================ Always remember that you are unique...just like everyone else... From TrevoraurochsSchultz@naleo.org Fri Dec 14 16:54:43 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3IUV-0006Jg-4j; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 16:54:43 -0500 Received: from 213.37.215.230.dyn.user.ono.com ([213.37.215.230] helo=casarober) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3IUU-0003jE-B9; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 16:54:42 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host65880879.naleo.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id C3XrmLmZ69.107607.UJn.TJA.0628924448728 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 22:53:53 -0100 Message-ID: <185501c83e9b$ebe31540$e6d725d5@casarober> From: "Julius Dawson" To: Cc: , =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Viagra would=20 help you to make better sex more often and to bring unimaginable = plesure=20 to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for = action in=20 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking = this=20 medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Viagra gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_1851_01C83E9B.EBE31540-- From xfefgttlik@borjes.com Fri Dec 14 18:01:43 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3JXL-0002G2-KN; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 18:01:43 -0500 Received: from 82-40-141-218.cable.ubr04.uddi.blueyonder.co.uk ([82.40.141.218] helo=wullie-3egdlxbn) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3JXK-0005Ij-LS; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 18:01:43 -0500 Received: from [82.40.141.218] by dkcphmx18.softcom.dk; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 23:01:35 +0000 From: "Minnie May" To: Subject: Hey Baby its Jen Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 23:01:35 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1250" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353 Thread-Index: Aca6QS1SQG8N3WXK275E7887URJO4I== X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Message-ID: <01c83ea5$464c7180$da8d2852@xfefgttlik> X-Spam-Score: 1.7 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 6d62ab47271805379d7172ee693a45db Hi I saw your profile on-line Maybe we can chat today? email me at Angie@SimOldGlory.info and I will reply with a Picture and info right away. From degesel@alicanteflight.com Fri Dec 14 22:12:21 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3NRt-0004Ln-GU for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 22:12:21 -0500 Received: from [85.133.32.148] (helo=[85.133.32.148]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3NRs-0005HN-St for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Dec 2007 22:12:21 -0500 Received: from vgusmaodesk1 by alicanteflight.com with ASMTP id EDB768E9 for ; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 03:12:42 -0000 Received: from vgusmaodesk1 ([181.133.88.52]) by alicanteflight.com with ESMTP id 767821EBE76D for ; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 03:12:42 -0000 Message-ID: <000d01c83ec8$4e143e70$94208555@vgusmaodesk1> From: "linzi degesel" To: Subject: rechnert Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 03:12:20 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0008_01C83EC8.4E143E70" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e5ba305d0e64821bf3d8bc5d3bb07228 ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C83EC8.4E143E70 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Compliments ccamp-archive discontented with your PE size? http://comparepound.com linzi degesel ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C83EC8.4E143E70 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Compliments ccamp-archive
discontented with your PE size?
http://comparepound.com
linzi degesel
------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C83EC8.4E143E70-- From zsouil@c21rt.com Sat Dec 15 02:17:06 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3RGk-0000sr-7K for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 02:17:06 -0500 Received: from dou189.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl ([83.24.128.189] helo=c21rt.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3RGj-0002CW-Lx for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 02:17:06 -0500 Message-ID: Reply-To: "Bernadine Askew" From: "Bernadine Askew" Subject: isfahan loaves To: Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 08:17:08 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 071214-0, 2007-12-14), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Score: 1.7 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 7655788c23eb79e336f5f8ba8bce7906 Watch ENERBRITE TECHNOLOGI Soar Tomorrow ( monday 17th Dec ) Symbol: ETGU Currently : .004 Big News is due out this week and trading volume is off the charts. People are loading up. Read the latest PR and find out what they know. You'll want to get in on SHTP too. Dont miss this chance to ride a multibagger. Add ETGU to your Radar and get in MONDAY before the news gets out. State Health Commissioner Dr. Fred M. Jacobs approved the requirement and three other vaccines for school children starting September 1, 2008, over the objections of some parent groups. Speaking Friday on Iowa Public Television, Clinton noted she personally apologized to Obama for the remarks, and said the "gentleman in question has stepped down." There are a lot of differences between us, and those are the contrasts that should be drawn," she said. "I'm running a campaign about who I am, what I've done and that's what I'm going to stay focused on." So often, sci-fi is overproduced, but "I Am Legend" doesn't look like a CGI extravaganza. It looks like an edgy suspense movie shot on the fly in New York City after the fall. And because of that, it's all the more effective. State Health Commissioner Dr. Fred M. Jacobs approved the requirement and three other vaccines for school children starting September 1, 2008, over the objections of some parent groups. From SheenahematiteMontano@portofpa.com Sat Dec 15 04:05:02 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3SxC-0003fX-Jo; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 04:05:02 -0500 Received: from [88.224.197.158] (helo=ummuhan) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3SxB-0004Mm-My; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 04:05:02 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host37020617.portofpa.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id wMy7a9Vg98.508892.gs6.A4A.2832262962928 for ; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 11:04:53 -0200 Message-ID: <1cfbf01c83ef9$93bbdb00$0400000a@Ummuhan> From: "Clarice Diamond" To: , =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Viagra would=20 help you to make better sex more often and to bring unimaginable = plesure=20 to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for = action in=20 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking = this=20 medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Viagra gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_1CFBB_01C83EF9.93BBDB00-- From ElvisirreclaimableMccall@variety.com Sat Dec 15 12:38:25 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3ay1-0008VM-Cw; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 12:38:25 -0500 Received: from [200.46.186.82] (helo=pcadmin) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3ay0-0003Q9-UZ; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 12:38:25 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host21247557.variety.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id re4fkAo521.717780.wCq.PqO.3140999439701 for ; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 12:38:15 +0500 Message-ID: <51dfb01c83f41$48fca480$6501a8c0@pcadmin> From: "Hiram Shannon" To: Cc: , =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Viagra would=20 help you to make better sex more often and to bring unimaginable = plesure=20 to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for = action in=20 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking = this=20 medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Viagra gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_51DF7_01C83F41.48FCA480-- From Ludwig@taosfotovideo.com.ar Sat Dec 15 12:48:08 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3b7Q-0006BH-Nj for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 12:48:08 -0500 Received: from [79.126.176.62] (helo=[79.126.178.5]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3b7P-0003ic-5p for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 12:48:08 -0500 Received: from besim-ee53ebf3f by taosfotovideo.com.ar with ASMTP id AA49CB30 for ; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 18:48:34 +0100 Received: from besim-ee53ebf3f ([103.163.67.106]) by taosfotovideo.com.ar with ESMTP id 76D4A983AB44 for ; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 18:48:34 +0100 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 18:48:05 +0100 To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org From: "helene Ludwig" Subject: umtionen Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 2.1 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 8ac499381112328dd60aea5b1ff596ea Hi there ccamp-archive Add up more joy to your holiday nights http://numeralfight.com helene Ludwig From Fahrenschonubwc@madamchic.cz Sat Dec 15 12:49:09 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3b8P-0006o6-Bo for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 12:49:09 -0500 Received: from [151.77.25.255] (helo=[151.77.25.255]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3b8O-0003lB-SB for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 12:49:09 -0500 Received: by 10.210.153.138 with SMTP id IWxRsKeIfliAG; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 18:49:16 +0100 (GMT) Received: by 192.168.90.82 with SMTP id WGnLTTYoCqDZxy.9303859052933; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 18:49:14 +0100 (GMT) Message-ID: <000201c83f42$cc90eb20$ff194d97@stage> From: "Donna Fahrenschon" To: Subject: nenneksu Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 18:49:11 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0005_01C83F4B.2E555320" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 071215-0, 15/12/2007), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Score: 2.1 (++) X-Scan-Signature: e5ba305d0e64821bf3d8bc5d3bb07228 ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C83F4B.2E555320 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable compliments ccamp-archive We stock all popular meds_online http://swimanger.com Donna Fahrenschon ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C83F4B.2E555320 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
compliments ccamp-archive
We stock all popular meds_online
http://swimanger.com
Donna Fahrenschon
------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C83F4B.2E555320-- From BrittneymountainGee@yahoo.com Sat Dec 15 19:58:41 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3hq5-0004YN-0u; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 19:58:41 -0500 Received: from [190.156.155.27] (helo=casa.cable.net.co) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3hq4-0007H7-CP; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 19:58:40 -0500 Received: from jest by yahoo.com with SMTP id XnnYPc5NyS for ; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 19:56:38 +0500 From: "Estella Burgos" To: Cc: , Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3hs6-0007K3-TR; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 20:00:46 -0500 Received: from cpe-69-76-130-212.kc.res.rr.com ([69.76.130.212] helo=acerf612064322.kc.rr.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3hs6-0007Iu-Ia; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 20:00:46 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host80839571.wikipedia.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id Hl786brD79.172246.enT.jjF.5554283938482 for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 02:00:33 -0100 Message-ID: <2738201c83f7f$122b4040$6701a8c0@acerf612064322> From: "Kelsey Trotter" To: , =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Viagra would=20 help you to make better sex more often and to bring unimaginable = plesure=20 to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for = action in=20 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking = this=20 medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Viagra gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_2737E_01C83F7F.122B4040-- From AlysonpantheonSams@resource.org Sat Dec 15 23:36:19 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3lEh-0007YD-NT; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 23:36:19 -0500 Received: from cpe-74-69-191-228.stny.res.rr.com ([74.69.191.228] helo=02ca3dc4340246f.stny.rr.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3lEh-0002Iv-CH; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 23:36:19 -0500 Received: from orthophosphate by resource.org with SMTP id 1VAI1LJR4C for ; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 23:36:07 +0500 From: "Herminia Mckinnon" To: Subject: Relax and have fun with blackjack Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 2.1 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 7bac9cb154eb5790ae3b2913587a40de We know how to treat our players - how about a $999 welcome bonmus when you join? We give out BONUSES to anyone who joins. We give out BONUSES to anyone who joins. Free money free fun. http://eurocasinoac.com/ From ElbaevzonePool@ririanproject.com Sat Dec 15 23:39:15 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3lHX-0000b4-DQ; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 23:39:15 -0500 Received: from 79-73-66-112.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com ([79.73.66.112] helo=stuartd5d4cec5) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3lHW-0002Kb-Oo; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 23:39:15 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host44335231.ririanproject.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id vXTkyYJv50.366570.ypZ.Nqe.3085947848542 for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 04:38:59 +0000 Message-ID: <16a0e01c83f9d$963dff80$0401a8c0@stuartd5d4cec5> From: "Robert Goodson" To: Subject: Hi Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 04:38:59 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_16A0A_01C83F9D.963DFF80" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 071215-0, 15/12/2007), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d16ce744298aacf98517bc7c108bd198 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_16A0A_01C83F9D.963DFF80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Even if you have no erection problems Viagra would help you to make = better sex more often and to bring unimaginable plesure to her. Just = disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for action in 30 = minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking this = medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours! Package Quantity Price in your local drugstore* Our price LearnMoreNow 10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49 30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50 60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02 90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40 180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46 When you are young and stressed up… When you are aged and never give up… Viagra gives you confidence in any chance, every time. ------=_NextPart_000_16A0A_01C83F9D.963DFF80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Viagra would=20 help you to make better sex more often and to bring unimaginable = plesure=20 to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for = action in=20 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking = this=20 medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Viagra gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_16A0A_01C83F9D.963DFF80-- From XiangJutzi@ioil.it Sun Dec 16 00:25:55 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3m0h-000704-Gv for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 00:25:55 -0500 Received: from [221.132.6.71] (helo=[203.160.1.52]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3m0g-0002yN-5F for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 00:25:55 -0500 Received: from dbdt-pc56 ([115.132.124.78] helo=dbdt-pc56) by [203.160.1.52] ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1HsPuT-000RTX-Qa for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 12:24:19 +05-30 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 12:23:44 +05-30 To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org From: "Xiang Jutzi" Subject: spacetih Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 3.7 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 8ac499381112328dd60aea5b1ff596ea Hi there ccamp-archive Turn your boner to something you can be proud of http://numeralfight.com Xiang Jutzi From akstcalphaclemnsdgs@alphacle.com Sun Dec 16 02:18:01 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3nlB-0006hx-DQ; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 02:18:01 -0500 Received: from [85.186.121.199] (helo=home-pm8ydlnmpr) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3nlA-0004XW-AA; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 02:18:01 -0500 Received: from [85.186.121.199] by alphacle.com; , 16 Dec 2007 09:23:51 +0200 From: "Mattie Nielsen" To: Subject: How does the hospital compare with others in my area? Date: , 16 Dec 2007 09:23:51 +0200 Message-ID: <01c83fc5$5f054ff0$c779ba55@akstcalphaclemnsdgs> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0006_01C83FC5.5F054FF0" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2741.2600 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Score: 1.8 (+) X-Scan-Signature: c1c65599517f9ac32519d043c37c5336 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C83FC5.5F054FF0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Buy today and save now {click}   texts. If you've read a of the best practices ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C83FC5.5F054FF0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Buy today and save now
 
=A0
=A0
texts. If you've read a
of the best practices
------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C83FC5.5F054FF0-- From Codi_Provost@10a.dk Sun Dec 16 04:28:13 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3pnB-00023N-PF for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 04:28:13 -0500 Received: from [212.189.241.72] (helo=[212.189.241.72]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3pnA-0003XB-JS for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 04:28:13 -0500 Received: from primo by 10a.dk with ASMTP id 4EC0D9A2 for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 10:30:11 +0100 Received: from primo ([155.126.138.100]) by 10a.dk with ESMTP id 3C19B3F8959E for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 10:30:11 +0100 Message-ID: <000601c83fc6$2e24fe70$48f1bdd4@primo> From: "Codi Provost" To: Subject: kokousp{ Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 10:29:39 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0006_01C83FCE.8FE96670" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Spam-Score: 3.3 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464 ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C83FCE.8FE96670 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Evening ccamp-archive Start a new, happiest s.e_>
Evening ccamp-archive
Start a new, happiest s.e_>
http://foodclose.com
Codi Provost
------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C83FCE.8FE96670-- From CurtclementGrimes@hopefulfarm.com Sun Dec 16 04:31:12 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3pq4-0007un-8l; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 04:31:12 -0500 Received: from [84.77.15.12] (helo=univ) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3pq0-0003Zz-W0; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 04:31:10 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host83054567.hopefulfarm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id n387uqOc66.195521.E4v.BNJ.5113489128339 for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 10:30:45 -0100 Message-ID: <9083d01c83fc6$5cbe50b0$6401a8c0@UNIV> From: "Agustin Vincent" To: Subject: Your order Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 10:30:45 -0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_90839_01C83FC6.5CBE50B0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d16ce744298aacf98517bc7c108bd198 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_90839_01C83FC6.5CBE50B0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Even if you have no erection problems Viagra would help you to make = better sex more often and to bring unimaginable plesure to her. Just = disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for action in 30 = minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking this = medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours! Package Quantity Price in your local drugstore* Our price LearnMoreNow 10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49 30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50 60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02 90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40 180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46 When you are young and stressed up… When you are aged and never give up… Viagra gives you confidence in any chance, every time. ------=_NextPart_000_90839_01C83FC6.5CBE50B0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Viagra would=20 help you to make better sex more often and to bring unimaginable = plesure=20 to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for = action in=20 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking = this=20 medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Viagra gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_90839_01C83FC6.5CBE50B0-- From talktrain.com@quikstopoil.com Sun Dec 16 07:43:12 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3sps-0001OD-Hs for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 07:43:12 -0500 Received: from f048236184.adsl.alicedsl.de ([78.48.236.184] helo=klkksup) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3spq-0007UR-QF for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 07:43:12 -0500 Message-ID: <000701c83fe1$08546800$0100007f@kiacl> From: "Rafael Allen" To: Subject: Avoid enhancement pills Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 13:43:18 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_003D_01C83FE1.08546800" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2905 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962 X-Spam-Score: 2.5 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 46ad68ada464411807db2a0edd5648ae This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_003D_01C83FE1.08546800 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_001_0060_01C83FE1.08546800" ------=_NextPart_001_0060_01C83FE1.08546800 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Info attached or here: http://www.ovibs.cn/ ----- Recover from what? From your j But Ive already recovered, mlo He turned to leave. Gabriel? s I asked you not to call me by ------=_NextPart_001_0060_01C83FE1.08546800 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello

------=_NextPart_001_0060_01C83FE1.08546800-- ------=_NextPart_000_003D_01C83FE1.08546800 Content-Type: image/jpg; name="img65.jpg" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: /9j/4AAQSkZJRgABAQEAZABkAAD/2wBDABsSFBcUERsXFhceHBsgKEIrKCUlKFE6PTBCYFVlZF9V XVtqeJmBanGQc1tdhbWGkJ6jq62rZ4C8ybqmx5moq6T/2wBDARweHigjKE4rK06kbl1upKSkpKSk pKSkpKSkpKSkpKSkpKSkpKSkpKSkpKSkpKSkpKSkpKSkpKSkpKSkpKSkpKT/wAARCAEQAjcDASIA AhEBAxEB/8QAGgAAAwEBAQEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMEAgEFBv/EAEIQAAICAQMBBAcECAQGAwEBAAEC AAMRBBIhMRNBUWEFFCIycYGxI1SRkjQ1QnOh0eHwFTNSwUNTYmNygiREovGy/8QAGQEBAAMBAQAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAECAwQF/8QAJhEAAgICAgMAAgIDAQAAAAAAAAECEQMhEjETQVEyYQQiQlKRcf/a AAwDAQACEQMRAD8At0ml07aSlmoqJKKSSg54jfVNN93q/IIaP9Do/dr9I6bJFEhPqmm+71fkEPVN N93q/II6EmiaE+qab7vV+QQ9U033er8gjoRQoT6ppvu9X5BA6TTAE+r1cc+4I6J1RcV+yQFJwx7x KypKyYxt0eXqOwVieyrAzwAoiQUc+zpl/CMtUM4JgTwVBx8Jx3s6+Kro7UtT/wDBQH/xEb2FX/KT 8onKipwD3R2PCQ2SoqtkttVSn/LT8oirK0Cbti8+UssTK9Ig17qmX8JKZWUF8G+jaqLTh6qyR4qD PT9T0pUj1anP/gJ5foj/AD/lPcAwx8xLRdSMZJUSeqab7vV+QQ9U033er8gjj1hOwyolOjrUkrTQ 4/0sgGPnNJp9O2QdJWpHiglEJFE6+CfVNN93q/IIeqab7vV+QR0JNEUJ9U033er8ggdJp8caao/+ gjoRQomsooqobNNftdQFGJ49u3fsrqT47RPZ1w+xznGD0njvYiOdx5nLkvlSN8cYqILp16tsB8Ns dXShHNSfHaIhbw3OZTTaDM3ZolE72FX/ACk/KIqytMkLWmB/0ykzOwbMSLL8Yv0SipGRhsUEDwi9 MqG4bkUjpgiUr7LHMTWuNWB5yyejGUVZ7A0en7NT6vV+QRo0emKk+r1fkE2v+QIxBmuTje0UklRL 6ppvu9X5BD1TTfd6vyCOhOyjKhPqmm+71fkEPVNN93q/II6EUKE+qab7vV+QQ9U033er8gjoRQoT 6ppvu9X5BD1XTD/69X5BHReoQPUVJIHkcZ8pWVJWEk3R5eqFDWlaqqwBxkKMRRrqIwFT5Cd1GXtC V4CKOo75la0XjJz4zk5Ps64pfDVdSHhqkyO/aOY3sav+Un5RO1LgeM3Kt2y3FfCW2usHitR8otkT aSEX8JTYocZGCPKLQcsO4iTZVxQjThDcNyKR4ET2PVKGpUiivPjsE8atdl4B/wBU+irH2HyhvZnS FVaXTF0zp6iD/wBAmjpNMCf/AI9X5BGUjIB8JuzuM2wvdFJpE/qmm+71fkEPVNN93q/II6E6KM6E +qab7vV+QQ9U033er8gjoRQoT6ppvu9X5BD1TTfd6vyCOhFChPqmmxn1er8gnnaiqntm21IB4BRP VsbajfCeLbeN5ABZiZhkkk6NMcfYdlX/AMtfwE2tNX/LT8omFZ/2hHKOMzns6eK+GTTVg/ZJ+USd 60zwi/hLCIi1MNkSVZVpfCa1FXjaB8pb6Nqps4epG+Kgye5N9PmDKPRJ+1xJfRnSssOkoW4jsK8H /oEdVpNNtYHT1E567BNW8WA+MYgxz8pEHUhJKhHqmm+71fkEPVNN93q/II4jBxCdphR5/pTT0V6C 1kprVhjBCgHqIRnpf9XW/L6iEzn2ZT7HaP8AQ6P3a/SOidH+h0fu1+kdNUaoIQhAOEhQSSAB1Ji0 u7Vx2aEp3ueB8vGdahXs3OSwHRT0HyjJBOgkmvcCsVg8k5Mfdb2NZY/KeY7FzvY5J8ZlllqjXFC3 ZNqbOzO7BPwk3reeinmWWKGi006g575gqNmnegoLsAxBHMuVopFwAI1RKt2WSo2fdk2cM0oY4WS2 cAmQhLof6NXbbunsqcsDPH0Z21q3iZ7CdAfAS0XswkYcYc+ZmZqzl/lMztXRiEIQkkBCEIAQ7oSX Wagp9lX7x6mVlLii0Y8nQjX37yUX3R3zytQu5vdBPjLGMWy5M5OV7OrgkqI0pfdhT+MtpRl69Z1F APSMAkN2FGhizZ6TCibzwZUuTWH7QzOnG68N4TtozkzukwoZz5/ST6Mpdns1ndTG1+7iT6U5pHnK V4OIgUkLPUzk3YMHPSI5tPgn1ncujBsZCEJICEIQAmLSBUxbpibkOvu3fZIeO8yk5Ui8I2zytRcK m4BImE1GZu6smYr02T4TmVG75WWUXZEdnMmqr2dJQsoy6OIhV2A9xufgZkj7QgdPHwjhJ7ySfISY 17DVLQrAbVLjkd5nu0nNWJ4mmG6xj5z2NIcow8DIl2ZjqPDxzOuPYB8JxeAJpwCCO7MvjdMzmLyW PHT6zsITrS+mQQhCSAhCBOIAvUDNLY7hPFQKrFu88z1tbaK6SAfaaeDfZYp9leDOfJTkb47SKRZy JQjgieWj2MwG2W07hwZk0axk2UCDrlYLNMfZlCxKx9giN9FjbYSfGIs4Bj9JxWGPhJfRm+z1bOVU xi+5nwMwvKL8JtRkkHkY6SEQzDEs2Rwp7/Gdmn6CZndF2rMGR+lv1db8vqIQ9Lfq635fUQlJ9mE+ x2j/AEOj92v0jonR/odH7tfpHTVGqCEIQAhCEAVqau3qKjhhyJ5KswZ67Bhlnq6q8Upx756Ty3yz FjyT1M58rVnThswvIzOgzoGBCYm4xTGAxCmNUyAac+zJ7T7Ec59mT3H7LgdDCIZRWcV1DzH0nsVt 7A+E8dR7dK+AzPWrPHykXTMpI7Z3GZmm6L8JmdsHcTnYQhCXKhCEIASLX6d2Ha1c7feU/WW4idZZ 2enPOC3GZnJf12XhfLR5BdWRSp6zUztHhOmcp2HQYxTE5mlMAeDAngzIM6fdMqBLH2DOr7OkY+I/ 3mLGxWQBzmbP+Qqn9rEkoz1NKcViVA/aEeMlp4rEcp+2HykJlJI3byqg85zmYm3OVX4mYnbj/E53 2EIQlyAhCEARrLTVVx3988xiepPx85691a2psbOJ5GoRqLHqzuGMqfATnyp2dGFqqMnBE6oxOL7o +E6DMDc2sYDFqZoQDZMQ/f8AGNiHPtN5QGa0owGPnL9A32AbxnnVHFDN45noaMY04kMzLWOAsYe/ 4RDt/lecb/KWi9ozktGIQhO4wCEIQAnHYIhYngTsTqkZ9O6qOe6Q7rRaNXs8/UWm19x6d0QyAzTn B2MpVh4zKnK585xM64pVSBFxGgTHfGKZBY2vEGPswnD7pkAnt5UxqnbQvyiHPB+JjieKl8Wkso+z 1qm6eYjFP2hEnQ4VPhGg/wDyWHwlUyjQ1h7GfAzE3+w8xO3F+JhLsj9L/q635fUQh6X/AFdb8vqI SJ9mE+x2j/Q6P3a/SOidH+h0fu1+kdNUaoIQi7LkrHJ9ruEq5KKtlkm9IZxjJi2uRfE/CIaxrDk8 DwE6B4DE4sn8v1E3jg/2Jtatl1otQAADpEAkjnhu8GXsQoyZBYwt1BZOAOJnjySyPZslxVIMTpXi Cg55m8TQC1HMYJzHM10EAxa2FiEO/K+ODO6mzumNPxljJ9EMtqO/VfACemDhseU8zRDlrW+UtR85 +UzfZUo97HkJwTqngzk7MDuJz5OwhCE2MwhCEAJ5/pJ2FqK3ubT+MtssCDzktidv7/TuB7pzZssY qjfFF3ZD1ECIy6g0H/Uv0nBhu6YxakrR0CWnVM26ZiSCrSQUKYO2FMyp4i73wuJFCzIbc23zzHqN 1taybTg5LGWaMbri593oIkVRfuwi+XWMB+2HwkvaBsnoM8R9TZdie4ATMhooPu/OZnHcqvKkr3kd 3ygGDDKkEeU7sTuJzS7OwhCalAhAkAEk4AnFYMMqQR4iAdBA5JxjM8e5u0tZx3nrPWsG6pwCASMT xsFGKN3cfGc+V+jfCvZyZmyJlhMTc6pjVMQp5jVMhkmycAyUtl2HjHu2FMkBzcAJKIZR7tCrjOcD E9GsslI4GM/OQKN1yL55lzN0Udw5mcirVjSwZU68N3yleSvwkatuFY78kypTlh5cSYumirWghOng mcnoro5gmbXFVbOeg7vGahBAuhClft8ux3N8Zy97a8PWu8D3lHUjy/lGyZdYisUvU1Wf6Scg+YPf Dftk7ZL6QdLwjIc8dZIo2ezKNXYG1BB90gYPliJOTyes457Z1w0gzNKZjE6DKlxwM459mcUzNrYU yAIzuO3zlAG6+tfDmS0+1cTLNMC15PcBjMSKF7HG0eU2D/8AIX/xEmawEsw6AkCOrObs+CiZiipe Q/wmYUHcgPjCdmB2jnydkfpb9XW/L6iEPS36ut+X1EJafZzT7HaP9Do/dr9I6J0f6HR+7X6TVtoq QnqemJeUlFWzaKb0jmot7JcLgueg8JGFLtubk+M6AXOW5JjOgnlZcjkzthBRR0cdesGb5nwEwWLM FHUyimgJyeWkYsDyP9CWRRJtRTqG05ZEGSehPMhC2VELYu0kZxPd5nm+lFIuSzuxid3hWNaMo5G2 JToJuYrM1mZGxxlycg4bxmXsKp7QwZ13CjrJmc2t5SQzON7Z6xqISAg7zzOKMcCM3rSmerGQyo8t tK0J3ckyunABbu7pDpEPNje83jKWfGxV6DrKMkur5ryYQr4SE6sH4nNk7CEIToMgmLXCDPfNMcDM jsc2P5AzDPl4R12a44cmdGWOTNE4EznExlmbaoyTPLScn+zr0kK1dwCbe8mJQ4AEL9NqBexesso5 BzM1tnmdcYcFTKKSl0OPIi2XMYDMkySxj3Vk7+20ba2eBMouJJALkeyB1jwFoqBPLngZ7vhOVge8 3dFsTdeOeFMctUiCqs52L4StTt/9jJaBvsJ6DPEaXDXgDoJmwegPcijWN25TtbxHfGqfZmZ14FcT mydgM456whCbmZxs446mIcNQd9eWX9pP9x/KUSB7CdTZknC8YzMcklDbNIRsY93agbOVibqVdMnh h0Im19nPnyfOK1VoSs4755rk5ys61FJCFORg+PWbKCJrOFAMcJ1AS64PE0s2wzMMdoMAxc3s9fhF 0rzuMCC7ZjEX9kd8NlR2mGSXbjw8ptbM7rOmWirn7OkIOpmVU4QMc9+JCV7ZBfR76k/sjJlVLZyf OSuQlJI95hHaM5qBmYZQ3Uzk63Wcnow6OVhCEDxLFTFtiVJvbOPKeb6Qur1QVQp2g98o19oZezT5 yROVIac2TI+kdEIe2MepbEGDyBgScHqp5I4M1Za1VZGOpxmLq6EnqZzwv2bDNsyRiMXpAyxJkHiK 1D8Ym7Pd4OCIkZc5MtWrIO0jZ7XjK627Klm7z1iK0ycdw5nb3yQi9CZR7ZA1CdiDx5lat2dbue/i SVjLgdw4j9Q4IFa9ByfjIBdpjhBNuMNE6Rs1KY+zl/lNsHZhk7IfS/6ut+X1EIelv1bb/wCv1EJt Ps5J9jdM2z0fS3AIrXr8JO5ZyM8kTgO7T6VPCsMR48ATSL3zk/lT/wATvwRpWdHExZlsBSc5jScA zumQsxdhwOB5znwQ5yr0aTlxQxNOFTH7R7+8GMrYsuT7w4PxmpwKAxYDk9Z6yjx6OJ7dnZi2lbkK NjymjmYsbYAB1kTkktiNtnnPpbaO7cvjmLO4eHMo1VxJ25HMmdsjHeJxOTZ2IRYCWwZ1RjymsZ5n GMkkC+3oMmFdfaPuf8Jlfe4lKrheeshg09gRPY65wZ1DkZ+ElJKOVPQnOZTSw2j4yGiEerV7k7M0 c14mp0/x/wATny/kEITjMqjLMBOgyJ7r/bNSjp1MSOJh7FOosweCZ0Ebc/ITy80nKR3QSSNHJO1e SZVp6uzXJ949ZnTVbQXYe1HzqwYVFW+znyTt0cYbgVPRhieLdU2nu2MMLn2TPbiNWK3pIYAnuJHS a5YqrK4206R5uZhm4MACOMiYcHoZzHUZHJmxgdTFjidUNY+0ceZ7hBBp7OMD5TdK45I5MTWMnJ69 0pGVQt390qwMNgrrAHWdqObVMhDkvtcnPdK6G5GeuZDVBHrofYhOJzSDOzrw/gc2T8ghCYtsFaFj NbpWUSt0S6rVslnZ148z4SPLglyck9Zp8WuW78zhbYuCPgZw5HzOuMVEdWWsO1ATnv8ACPbQ12VB bCd2eSIzQ7TQu0AHvPjHibYsMYq2YzyNs8fV0er3gKSUI4zOBuJ6mooW9NrdR0M8qyt6W22DI6Ai RkjxZpjlaAtFO2TidZovvmZobUY4EYCEXzid234zJcniRRAz/MsGeglFYBbcegiKVwPMzV9hrUKO 88mR2B72do3B4HAlehYbNueR3TzK3BJx0zPR0WCwOOR0lWPRXY4V1B43cCdhYgYEMMgxSMyN2bnP +lvH+s9GH4nLVjCQoyekl1OrUDbUc57/AAjdWcaZvj/Kecu2Y5ZtaL44J7ABt2ck56mdsT2Nynmd 3KOPGG47iuOCJzm17odoKltps7VQ2ecEZxEa+kUWqUGK2GOO6V6DhHz1lF1S3IUcDHUZHSdKjygZ SlxmeSp4gTOvS9BIyCvcYosT0nObWZsbJxBZls5zic3cQB3abFwO+YrG5tx6DpFMSSB3GPpGB5CQ yGPDitSx6npMVvuyD1MVcpYZB6d0zU/tY6NIrQV3s9jQn7PHgZS3vGQ6GzBxLn658Zrge6Msq3ZF 6W/V1vy+ohD0v+rrfl9RCbT7OOfZPpiTWhPcigfllS9JPp+aKv8AwH0lInlZncmepD8UYcE4UdWO JWo2qFHQDEnpG7UZ7lEpHSeh/FhUL+nNldyCEITqMQz1z3DMh1GqUMQBlm6eXnKdTZ2dRJI5niW2 klm6Z4E58zv+pvijewazfac907uyYms7l6ARwXBEwZujQnGE3MmQSxdY+0A8TLbV2DPcJ51xK2Da SOO6bpdnDvY7sEXdtLnDcgf7j8JbjYrQ1x2kKy9ZwRxM1r60AayKWLqgG5iCTn592P5QTS6m0Niw EBQch8+XHzBHhHEjR7Ohfcg+Eces+Z7bUVEr2tiEdQGInseiLHs0ztY7Od55Y57hNcOnRllj7Lp5 vpF83bOmFB+s9I8TzNR9vqm4590eeJplejKCtiRWO4yvR07/AGnYez3Sfsz3Zz5zVSujby2OenjO WKXKzpkrVI9TpyZxWDKGU5B5BiGb1ltg9wcuR3+Uo+E9CtHI1RwttBJ7hPL1moB6HgyvXXCtMA89 88W1tzBT3czlyu3RvhjexgfJHiOs65yYsHc2RxN98xNTuJkuVRlA97gny8JuYYQiGFCktmUO23AM hLMthCsR8DOpaVtU3A2AZGxmI5k0Wodagc5HXxm6WZRhhkjvhYFsJrrRa2FYs3b259jJHX+8TJ01 o/8AsrtAyOTyMZPd3Dn8JPEqqPZ0VnaVY8o6fOO2o0+1VvbaRkFWPPX+U9X0PY9mlc2OzkMeWOe4 TXDrRllj/kXHGJ5+qu7R9o90GW3Z7J9vhPNTH7XWTmk0qK4knsAo6idJVhggfCZZ9tmF5GIKNzZI nOdBboj9myjjHTylM8/T2Gu7HceJexCqxPcJ143/AFOXIv7Cr7RWu3PPWeVqtSWcDujNTduPJ5Iy fKQB8vkznlLk7OjHHjEoBBHIEwRk8Ti982soWFsJgHDYjmGYt1wM98sQU1jC5My5DDB75LXa6Orb icEeyTwRKb9TYKavs6gzJuyKxwdx/lIUQ1QtAUfxEv0du2wDxiLtMp1dmL9il7MYBwCvJHwx/wDw 9ZkaR9ybNR7wB5YAgYLePgO/Hdz3w42LR7rHODOT52+6+q4qNS7KMY22E/7z3dKS2lpJJJKKST8J 04nqjDJDjsNShs07oOpHH1nlqu5cgz2f4Tynram5q2GFLZXHhK5l7JxP0K25jUGBzOsoyCOBDOAZ zm5vTMRqVGeMHj5SvU2hcJnryx8BItNkWG4DKoOefGLuubaS3vHkzdycYaMXHlMzq9RxgSdG7yYl 33NkngdJtcsc4mNUjdoYTkzLCdE7xmCBRBzxKqVPZxDRJssBOHYfOGrISspZyrbSpHnAKrnOcHxm 9JY1lDBrq1xYg3WpuxnOeo8hF9kbPb3lXsVrFVRhQATnv46Hu8JNAqp31sGGSO/E9YMGqBniJQd4 VNXaAzouVH+tcjvkz6i5X2JqbSuOu84iKcXZDipqj2PS/wCrrfl9RCQix7PQl5sdnO8DJOe9YTeT vZ5+VcZUW6WkDSVObAAUXu8pSKvOI0f2tFH+mtF+bY/2lcr4Mct0dCySSF1VbGc5zuIMZDrCbxSi qKhCEJJUn1emN4xvC/KSP6I3YHbnA/6P6z04SnCL2XjklHSPPT0VtGO1H5f6zX+HAdbv/wAy6R6w sl6O67qQPa+cjxxJ8kjn+H8Z7Xjx2zn+Hf8AdH4TF5QaKs1MQN58uvdKq9T9pYj1FOzGeseOI8ki Oz0RvbPb4/8AT+sK/RXZsT24I6MCnDDwPPwlNOrFtgTaMHOCGzGa0gaZgwJHHfiT44k+SROvo41u jI1a7Tv2BDgkdM+1n+/jO+onYte9NingGvPeSO/uyfx5zN9uK0rrVc5r3DJ6+XmZQ77ELMCcDkRx RXnIgX0WwAVr96juZM/xzKtHpxpUZFbIJzMV6wPW1jVsExw2evSao1YuYrtIwM8HMLGk7RLk2UHn Pwkh0Wee0IOck4m01O65azWV3cjPX5iL1VxsqtWsH2MZbOO/+Ms4p9lU2uhnq5K5NgJ8fGYOmywU OD3njpOm9qqaRtxuQe1n4R1LZ3YC4BIGD1mfjVkqckFNXZKQIyTLfa+sakKMKuTyQe7mc9cJra1a ya1OCc/Ca9FQv0fbWljYAM9MSX/Bs8nUHP8A4/1npBw1Qde8ZEn099lqPYVBGTjHX8MSnCLLrJKO hC+igv8Axf8A8/1mh6NHOLc/Bf6yiq4XWNSyFSB3Hp8T84jR2uKCVAexm4GevHMjxxHkkc/w3/u/ w/rOH0bn/jD8v9Y67VilioUEryRn4ShSHrDAkAjI58o8cR5JHmt6G3NuGo478J/Wdb0QdmO13kdM rjI/Ga0+oamlmKFwbMFiY6zs/X6wVfftJzkYxzLKCRPkkK9QNliXC1VIULt7M93GDzzxwZo+j7Gd GfVbioI9pPezkHPPhx8AJpNebCuysYZiuC3Tp5ecqssWuss+cDw75HFEOcjzrfRRfH2oTZwqis4H fjk+cr0Wl9TqNe8vk5zjESHazXUMQcMhIXOeomqHSttS4UjbycsOvMlQSDm3plnBB8JK2jVmLB8A nPSZ1Ntr6QkoVBGVOfh/OMouJFdaAMFQbzn3eJLin2VTa6F+oc5Fg/CaGiAH+Z/CVSO53fWJp2OF 972eMiU8cS6nJmho/bVltzg54Efcm8Fd2PlF2aZTtNYCkNztGMwv1RpcZTK5xnPPyHfLKKSpFHJt k1voztP+OR/6f1i19DAHm8/k/rLLNVsuFYrLsRnqBN6e71hC23bg4xK+OJfySJP8LA/4o/L/AFnf 8M/7w/L/AFlFl7V6hamUYboxbA+k562comwBn5A3d3d3eUeOJHkkI/wz/vj8v9Zl/RWRjt//AMf1 lHrmKnZqyGrbDDPSdXU7rak7M+2u7r5R44jySIv8EH/PP5P6zR9Gszoh1Cnsxx9ivA8D49/4y7U3 dhXu27juwBmT13ixdQWQ4HvFSMxwQeSV0A0V4Zj60hLEk/YL39fxix6NsG3/AOX7vI+zHPGOT38c YjK7ux0NbohKEkHLefwjrNUagxKjAUYIbvMniiOciNvQ5dix1Byf+jGPLrPRqTsqkrJB2qBknrF0 X9sXGwqVOOYvVlRqKQynduHKkY698lRS6Dm32VRWooFyjPDDvi6LrbbrF2LheD7R8T5Tupuepq1r QHceuTzzJavsqnWznqf/AHf4Th0Wf+IPwnVtZXapUD2gbmyT+HTzjaLVvq3px3YMp44l1kkYr0wS hqgwJJyT/SIt9HGzk3EE/wDR/WcLtXr7yFazamcZ6cCPOrUVVPtINhwAeB1kuCYU2iIehR33n8n9 Y0eiwo/z8d3K/wBY060CgWdmTltuPP4zliduGsdGBxtRc45PfI8cSfJIWfRfGBeAfHZ/WcHosD/j D47f6z0EBVFUnJAxmdk8IkeSR5x9FZ/4/wD+P6xZ9CgnPrB/J/WerCPHEeSR5o9FOKTUuoAQnJzU CSfjOj0ZYK9i6kADIyawTg9Rnw5now6x44k+SRDXobkUKuqXAIOWoUnjpz5RLehgxJN/U5wK8D8M z1IRwiR5JHl6nS+qeiL6w4fLA5xjvEJR6X/V1vy+ohKyVM58jt2O0QA0dGBj7NfpHROj/Q6P3a/S Omi6NEEJmx1rQu7BVHUmdUhlDDoRnkYkg7CEIAQhCAElte2uxg+zsm4DHO0fGVQIyMHpIYIm0ber JWCpO7cST/SbWhzqXdtmHXadpP8AKUqoRQqgADuE7JBPpqbaRsdwVX3eOZrVI12natNuWIOTHQyY BI+nsatayKyoTaM9x8c4jyj+rmsHJ24ye+MhAJq9O/qnYWcHHBna6bexKO4yBtXAlEIJIatJallV ilN4BBP9/Gat0jlrlrKbbeTnxlkIIJLkWyhNO/DkADH9+GZUoCoFHQDGJ3AznHPTMOvTH4yLLOL9 k5oddWbuCrDBz1+nlF+qWCl6QUNbNkFjyJZOZBJGRnvEkqCKFRUByAuMyWvTWJRZSGX2uQ2fhK5w MDkKwOOvlFk06I6tLZVb2i9nkrtIHj/YE4ujsRRgpvD5yPD+8S6d8/4kwOyU02jUC9HXLAKwI+nj KAMKFPJxjM6Mdw/jAY7pCaZLVdoiTSOaxUxXaH3cE5m7a29aS72dqgyr5zAK9oRuTOMBfKQ9dFab 6IOzet11SCkKxGFH7QPTjpmX3V9rUUJxmdWtEOVRVPiBOsduOOM/hLEt/SWvT3LdVYxUhFxjkTia ViLxYQBbyME8fwlkIIINQLa9IK7tpQ/tKDhceME01m6u2l61IXBYHIP85fJ20xRi+mbsmPVcZVvi P5RtA7pXsKslx+0U9B/fSGo0/asr1vssXocRoGNrMFWzHdNE54J58jIdPRZJrYpReWxY6rjuRev4 ya3R2WtYVZfabIJPT+8/wl0JJBK1N7ahLSUOFx1PP8JrR02U1FXIOTmUQ84BNqK69RYiE8q3PPQf 3iDUuLq7aypK8YJ7o9WRiSpUnofGakabsNNPZJ6mWruBI3WnJ8p2rT3C+qx3T7NcdDKj58Z8e+Hl nnyMWOL7EarLrXWNhZjkZXIiq9/2tBCcqSWBPB8zK2RXGHUNjuIgoCgBQAB0AkkCKtOTpOwsKbuR wZw6TfpVqBG4YbJ6EymHdjugC6VsVftcbu/EXqaXttrZSuEOT/fylEIAhKTXdYyhSr8nnoYaiprH qdCpKnv4/vpHwzIFE3Y2Lf21e0ll2sDnA/hN6ajsKdo5ycmOzCSCV6LTbc6hMONo9o+Ez6pZ2FYG 3fWxIwePnxLIQCW+i2ylE3ITnJ7gI2xLnrQKFVwck9f9o2GIAQhCAEIQgBCEIAQhCAR+l/1db8vq IQ9L/q635fUQmU+zKfY7R/odH7tfpHROj/Q6P3a/SOmqNUJGnBt7S1u0IPsAjhfl4+cdCBIAyeBB LYQk1nbFu3pyQBjsyeHHl4GNpuS+veh46EHgg+B847IGQhCAEIQgBCE4G9or4fxgWdhCEAJkksdq 9B1M1OLjHA4gk7CEIICEIQCG9ax6RTdsVSuTkDB4M7WV9c3UECoA79o9mbdLW1qWLWdijBORz1lF iiytkPAYdJgot2dTklX/AISNrvZ3Ku2skLv6488Rgt7C9aFr3FxndkZP94mdPTsTY1C7geHODNPX adbW+w7VGCRjz8/OLl2KhbNVXl7nqZPaUZ4PH98zGnsqD6g9mEK5JIPxzCuqwa97DWdpGO7+flF1 6ezfexQqzcowPxi5ENRp1+hyah3QOlW5Sce9yB4x7KrDDAEeYkVNDjUK4Q1lSd/PDfCWkttJCljz juloNtbKTUbXE83TGldM7WV7jk92e7x7pU7HQ0IAu8Zxyee+Y0qPTQyWacnc3TIwf4zmor1N9BzX gls446fjKf2Ub9mz4udehzahq7K1arCvwOef75irP1pT093/AGM1qa7HtoZazhTk9PLz8oPXadbX Z2Z2qMHp5+fnD5P/AKiIqK/4zp1RY27EB7Pgktjx8p19Rv0fbqmVPUZ6c4i3qtL3C1C4Puc8D5Z8 5zsbf8PNRQl847vHMXLZHHHSGLqiGRXQ4K7gQfrOHVt2HbLUCuce9z9I1MVaZWsym1dp3SNUday7 acvXu3gh8Lj4SZOSXZMIwd66KvWOK8Jl7BlRu4A85rT3rbu4wyEgjORJygvenVLVkcqUJEppVQDt rFY8AJaLlZnNRUSb0mAKEbAzu6/Kc1Wzcvq6r2qke4PrN65HuUV1oSQQT0/nKkzjJGCJDVyZZSUY J+yc6osbdqA9nwSWxzz5TN97WaLtK/Zz58jmZaq1nu7VC4PuYPA8OM+c6KLD6ONJGLAT39ecyrcn aL1BUxiXGvSrZcBjaMEMcnjvnDqWRqxZXxZ4Hp8eJmyh7tIK9hV0A6njI/GOre5gFavaw6t1Esm9 FGo7JtIWXUanYgb2vh38ynTX+sVl9u0g4wYrT12V2agsjAOSw6c/xndDXZVSUsTbzkcyIclSJy8W m1+jHpMAUo2BndycTmoFZetdOFW3d+yOg85vXV2XIERCeQe7HfC6lsrdSmLRwVPQiRJO2TBxUVfe zeo1DUOua8qT1z/SaW1nf2UzX/qBi7Fs1G2t6ylZGWOR18pzSJdWDU6AoDkHj+ctcuX6KOMeH7KT jPOR/CdGO7nxi7qa7yO0Gcec3Wi1rtXp9JruzHVHYQhJKhCEIAQhCAEIQgATgZMAQRkcwmCmDlDt Ph3GAbhAdOYQAhCEAIQhACLss7N0BHsscbvA90ZM2VrbWyN0IgEvpf8AV1vy+ohOelAR6LsDHcQF yfHkQmU+zKfY/R/odH7tfpGghhkHI8orR/odH7tfpNgFLOASrc/Ay91RpdUbnGUN1GZ2cJCjJOBL P9knZPbQwt7fTkLYeHU+648/PzjcF+vC+HjNyE7JCEISSAhCEAJlgSwI6j6TUIDVhCEPOAcbpx3z o4EQNUhpe3DYU4PH9+MLNXVWisc5YAgY7oJHwiPW6zQ1ozhTyO+abU1qauD9r7v8P5wQNhJ31tSM UwzMDg4HSOZ1VCx4HWAahwOuPmYhNVWzAMGUHoWXAMm7VW15LqxUHauBxkYgHo57unkTOdOJ51Fq Wap2fcc+54Dr1lI1aFhkOqk4DFeCYBRDux3RF2qrpfs/aZvIdIj1zZq7VbcUHAAHQ8QC6El7QDWW k2PhVztxx3TZ1aDTrfhirNtHH9+EAfCJt1C1vsAd2HJVV5m67VsTenQ+PdANwiLtVXRYEOST4DOI Jq6XR33YVPe4gD4d+e+TLrqjaEG72umRGHUILGTDEqMkgcf3xAGMiuhVgCD1zFjT1dMEj/SWOPwm Dq0GnW7a2122gY/vwjGuQXrSc7mGc+HWRSLKTQwAKAFGAOgHdMu21eBkngCTXekKqyep5xkDibOs RFBsBUsMgDnjnEmtFbsci7Vx1PUnxM3nu4/GLqsFtYdQQD0B6yKi1LNW5sDc+5noOvWRQPQ8oSYa 6k2bTkDOM44zNXauqpih3Mw5wBJA89M8cd5gMEZBz5xVrB9K7AYBQkZ7uJLp9XXXRWjbuc8yH+iS 7cpO3IJA6eU6eesj1dgrtR6gzWoOVVeq981dqkOmW+tzgMDjpnxEmtEFUJMutpat29oKviOvWODb lFgGMjkeUA3A4GM8fEyd9bSlhQ7mI6kDgRGsuS3SCxGPD88QC8jnnEB07sfHEnr1lL2dn7Q7hkYk 1rA1asdo7EMOGHA57uYB6PwhIQ+xqB2j47IcL06HzndFq+0ArsJLE8NjuxALYSTS3KmnZ2d39r9r r07o2rUJYwQ7lPUbhjMAd3dRjzgDkcEEeUne5barVTPsqee6Y9GHOnY/9X8oBXCEIAQhCAEIQgBC EIAQhCAEIQgEfpf9XW/L6iEPS/6ut+X1EJlPsyn2O0f6HR+7X6R0To/0Oj92v0jpqjVBOHg89DOw IyJEla0SEJwZxzOwnaICEISQYH2ZwfcPTym5wgEYPSdAwMSqVa9Et2EIQliAh3c9MGEIB5hRy7aa lw1bnJIGdsov09qWVWUAPsG3B7xKUREzsVVz1wMZmoBCNNaabt2Fe05xOCnVOaNyKBWcdfhL4QCf TVOtuoLpgM2RzGams30ugPJ8YyGIBDTpmQqG0wyp98P/ALRy12ev2OVOxgOc9/Eo6QgEtdDZvGzb vzyTnx5ia9IyYVtMLBnhw+P4T0IRQSokaq6vVG6pQ4YBSM9IPVqF1bW1IGDgAknpK4YgEy0udba7 r7LJtzn4RS6S47aX29ipyPGUXXhGFaKbLSOEH1PgI1c7RuAz34gkjv0rHUdqtYtUjG3ODH6avs6s dl2PPQnMdJNRZZpb+1OXocgMP9B8RASsLar01LW0qrbgBjwi/VrjVqVZBmwjAz5/GUpa12DWoFZ/ abvHkI6A1RJZTYfVfY9zG7n4TQpt9bYisJWwO7B97zlMIIPP9VvZBSSprUllPHJjdPVc9va34yF2 gD6yvJ8ZwjKlT0MA82vTZJ3ULeuSFO7Ep7Fxq6mFeFVMEZz3GUgBQAOg4E7IRCVIJJVp33akEAB8 7T+P85XCSSef6tqCiUlVCK2Qw7xH11Ouvd9uVKgA5+EphAM3AtTYMckEfwkb6ew6GusJ7QOTz8Zd M9opbbn2j3QCS/SsdR2orW1cY27sGKbSXihq0q2KXDKgbJXjmelDrAJGrbs7NOK9xQ5UeR6f7iUa YWClRb738fnNwgEfZ6mu5zWiuth69MRR01/qfZ7fb7TPXynowgEfY6m7UV9qiqiEnjv/AIzJ09xT VDaPtGBHPnLoQCRaLRqKGKDC14PPkYaOvU1OUKLtznJ6yuEAgXR2HSbGGG35AJ6xmnoK2IW0wQge 9vzmVwgElNVq2WZrC1sOFPIJ/lG6VLEq22KqnOfZGI1iACScAckw6SrdPZJ2EISxAQhCAEIQgBCE IAQhCAEIQgEfpf8AV1vy+ohD0v8Aq635fUQmU+zKfY7R/odH7tfpHROj/Q6P3a/SOmqNUEIQgBCE IAQhCAEAQRkciLsBcisZwfePl4RgGBgSL2AhCEkBwMZ48MmB6zz9c/aXdmGwqKTnz6x51W3S12hM ljtIz0gFMOMeUnTVjNpasgVHGc9eZyjVra4retlLDI56wCkHPQgiHHTj8ZDp70p0j2FGzuxgnOeJ lbDdr6i1ZTg5U/AwD0IcdOPxi77lorLsCfASRbO111ZZCnskkH5wC+EjbX43FamZB+1+E0+sKsii oneu7r5QCqEk9dHq4s2HO7bjPzmqtYHdlasqFXcctAKYSSvWhrFUrtDEgMWBz8poasi01iljtfaT nuzAKAqgkhQC3UgdZ2RnXKHP2bdmDjeT1Met5bUvTs90Zzn+/GANnGUOpVhkEYIkw1o7DtWQj2to APlKK2L1hiNpPzgC9LU1CtVj2Qcq3jnx847gdcfMyR9cQ1irSzbTjI+c5fYllmncA+03dx4eXMMF n+0J5re5rP8AzH/+jHrqBWtFQQszKO/jpAK4TjEKrM3Qc8SNvSGF3CliCcKe49YBbCTXas13PWKi SgznPlnwg2sQUq+0sz8BRAKeM44zjpmEh0z9rrnYqVO0ZB+UfqNQtAQbSxY8DOAPjAHwiTeRqUq7 PG5c9en94mDq8Lc3Zn7IgdevMAe6b8ZJA8AesAAhwMAGTHWkVmw0v3Y8+Ph5QGp7YWVmsrhCTkkH pIaBWMEcHMJHRd2ekRkQuWPAz15xN3arstidmWsYAlB3fOE7BT3d2PMw+Eht1Bv012a9uwjv85Vp v0arPTYPpJAyEj9fUP8A5bdnnG/PUzdurKXPUKWYqAQR8vKAUwk51lfq4twcnjb5/Gcr1auHymGV S2M5BEAphJa9aGRnallQDOSfOZGtY7R2JBY4BJ+Ehug9FnGPKAOehBE86jVNXa4tVmDNgjz8MecN JcKdLZawY5bAXPl4yVdWwivUe2Uq7mOT8B/YjpNVq94tDVlHQZ2k+UwmuDPWpqYBzjOfORRJWygj OcY75yttw6jjrFLqN9r0rW3GQST/AH+MXoFPZEtkHeevhIa3aK/srhCEsSEIQgBCEIAQhCAEIQgE fpf9XW/L6iEPS/6ut+X1EJlPsyn2O0f6HR+7X6R0To/0Oj92v0jpqjVC7bVrwOWZvdUdTCpbNxe1 uT0UdFH+585vaN27A3YxnvnYJsIQhBAQhCAEIQgBDxxxx3whAJk0VeS1g3sTnIJGJz1ICqysuNpO VGPdlUIBPXpEWmxCd27qe8zlGk7Nwz2FyoIBPdKYd2IBKujUac1M+cncGA6TtelK3V2vezsveZTC ALvqF6bW690VXpCtiWNYzsuQcnulMIBG2h4ZRayqTnaOkYumAtrs3+4m3GPKUQgEh0gXSunLndux nEzp9Oa3Ysm0Mu3ZnPzzLZwKASe8yHfoklTRdmylXXC92wE/jHU0Cq21s5FhJxGwhKiCQaFd+O1J rznZ3AzVuk33mxbShI5xxKYSQTV6MppzULOpzkrHVVdlUEBPE3CAQJp3st1Ht2ICxxjoeY86NfsV VsCo5575RCASnSZW8bwO1OceE1ZpA61KznbWBwF6yiEA4QpBVgcEYkZ0HsbRc20HKr3CVq4ZiFyc dT3TUhOwTtpcva/aD2129PLE56oDSlfaHdWSQw4xKYSQIo0xqtFpsLkrySes7qqhdWFLELnJG3Md CASNp0uKPVcRsG0EdYDR4ruTtQe1xyRKGqUsG5VvEcTcEk99IbRirBcpjGDiKo0pVrHcGsMu0LnP zzLYQQITSqlKIH5Q8Hu84XaY2lG7Qoyj3x3x8JFbsEg0WK7k7TJsOcnrKUTbUtecgDGZqEkEg0K7 8dqTXnO3uzMNS76+zDWVgqMOPlLu7HdCATjRr6v2eTnO7d5ziaQqrKbEO5SMisCUwgCV04GnFDnc OYldER2ZNzNs6AnOJZMlwHC95GeuMR0CdNGq6tr9/XJAx4wXRqNOai+cnIbHSVAg9Dn5wgE1elCB y1hsdxgsfCcGkGyhTZxUc9OsqhAErph60by5LdAAuIaansKthYtk55joQAhCEAIQhACEIQAhCEAI QhAI/S/6ut+X1EIel/1db8vqITKfZlPsdo/0Oj92v0jonR/odH7tfpHTVGqCEIQAhCEAIQhACEIQ AhCYNm2wIwwD7rdx8oJqzcIQggIQhAMdrWbeyDZfwh2qG1q9/tqM4xPP1NVtmtfsGUOgDAMPhMU6 u06my5tOSdnOwg46eOIJPWhPOo1trNW7MGWwkbMYIlups7Kl2AyRBAyEj01172qrBirjIJXp/OCX XNqOw7VPZOS2Oo8PjAKwwOQrA46+U7PP0W9dVZl1HtHcCOSZrTW3uhsZwUQHPHXiAXQnmNqtQK9/ aphj7oxuHWei7FamYAEgZ4gGotrqxZ2Zf2uvAklGo1D2KdpZH6+zgLz3GKQagnUbXUbfe4574B6K W12FgjZwcHiaYhVLMcADJJnnU220aLeCPbOEwOnXrMm22/tKGcMiLvZgOvgPpIZKPSFilA+QFIyC ZoEEAg5B6GeZY2pt0nau6bPh5x1dlyaIFCjkeH7K4+skgqe1EZFZ8FjgDEHUucZwnfjqZHa3arpb O1TdngkdTmUvcUoax12leCPE+Uq96YNJbWbOyRgCvdiMnk0Wiu2t/a3bjvJHcZZZdYusRCdqNjac Z3SwKoReosNVLtjJEn0197WDcrMjDOSmMcdxgFkJ5x1V5V3FqLjgKcZ+UbZfcooPuoyjLbc5OIBZ CQ6jUWpdaAxACgrx5j+ZldRbsUL+9tycd5gG4Tzm1V5V3FiLg4CnGflG2X3KKD7qMoy23OTiAWd/ UAAZ5nAysu5TkZitUnaaZwT+zmJ9H3AUrXZhSMkE9GEElblUUszEASddfS1m3kZ4BI6yke0Oo24z kzzdU63ahUrwFTkkcZ+cA9L+MRqrrKtgqTcW8szq6ms4VjtJ5G4Y/jF610BVDcam97IBgVRzTaxr LuxtXDHPQdJXPL0zivVjae0BON5+sufU1ratOfbJxwIIHcY8p5WpseyxjzgHHX+H8JfrHdKD2ali xxxPOtZk04qNLr7WS5PU/hIr2KLdJYtegV3bAGcnHnHdqpZFT2t4znwHjIq2ZvRrqwKqMYY9/PPd KdGhFKu3LMo+Q7pZFktWyiEISCoQhCAEIQgBCEIAQhCAEIQgBCEIBH6X/V1vy+ohD0v+rrfl9RCZ T7Mp9jtH+h0fu1+kdE6P9Do/dr9I6ao1QQhCAEXXb2j2AD2UO3dnqe/8JpwxRghAbHBPcZymsU1L WvQDqe/zgk3CEIICEIQAgQD1mEsSxmVX5U4PE4t1bo1itlRnJx0kckX4v4MhF9tX2Xab/YHOcTq2 o1faB/Z5PTwkWiOMvhuESmroZgFsyTxjE2Lqu17Ldl/CFJPpkuEl2jq0oLjaFO4jB56zi0VrYbFT DEYIz1nGuqDOpb2kGTxMnU0hUffw2QCR4RyX0cJfDqaaqt9614bxz0jSoZCpAIbrMPZWjIpcZc4H E5bfVUPbcAnuxDkl2woSfSMrpaEbcq8jjOZoaaoKo7PAVsjHjODUVGst2mVHXj8IxWDqHHRhkSVJ PoOLXaMCisXGzZ7fjO1111qQgOPCce6tHCMwDHoMTVti1pud9o/vukWiOL+CF0+mcnCDdnJHQiU8 EeRi81245DNjIxwcRkmLshprTEjS0b9wTBBz14mhTWN/Hv8Ave1GQ6ySDAorFXZhPY+M4mnqqVkR MBuvnGQgGBRWK+z2Hb4Ezg01Qq7PZlc55M2zKuCxAHQZnYJp9izp6iV9jG3oAeBNW0paoV1OAc9e s4bEFq1lsFucYmuJCaZLTXZx60sQoykr4ZmBp6VcNsBIAAyM9I2cLBRk8ASSoFQyFCMqeuYpdLTW 4dVwR5xwIIyDkQxAEvpaLGLNWMt5zp09JK7kB2dOMxsIAiyk22qGCdmpzx1//keIHnrCAJfS6dyS 1Yy3nOnT0kruQHZ04zNPaiMis+CxwBibkJplmmjjKChVs4PBxEWaWt1SsEqq8gSiEkqZKL2ezGFx jA7hEjQ6f/lfxMo6dJl3WtC7dBIbSRKTbFJpERy55GMBTzgTp01LDmofKbaytce2Pa6QFlbF8MCE 6nwkcl9LcX8MppqqySigHuJ9rEXRpSlzXXOXYngxgvqKp7Yw5wvE0Qz5B4Tw8ZNr0Rxa7NKwI9k8 TNla3DDqWHxmwMcCY7RDa1e72lGcYjSCTZwUIKuy2ex4Zm1AVQF6AYE7gQklQhCEAIQmBahtavf7 SjOMSLSLJNm5hfbbf3DhZp1yuAeD1PlM1WJYmU6DiVe3Qp1ZuEIS5UIQhACEIQAhCEAj9L/q635f UQh6X/V1vy+ohMp9mU+x2j/Q6P3a/SOkmk1WnXSUq19QIRQQXHHEb63pvvFX5xNEzRMdCJ9b033i r84h63pvvFX5xJsmx0In1vTfeKvziHrem+8VfnEWLHQifW9N94q/OIet6b7xV+cRYsdCJ9b033ir 84h63pvvFX5xFiycWeqai4MD9p7YPj3/ANImq006Syor7TYwPIyq2zRXYNl1TY6faAf7zps0TWC0 3Ull4H2g4nM4O9M6lnhWyfV4p09elBPi2P4zumuzTqEGcBWZA3h/eI8XaPtDb29W88E9oJx7NC77 mupJxt/zB0/HzkuDu0x5oVTI0XtKqqeyCMTkWd/f3xl1Rs11mz3kUMvx4jy+h2Kna0gIcr9p0/jN Ldo1sNovqDngntByJCxln/IjuiRbO0s1D85ao/LiY2lk06sw2sxA8uZaH0IdmFtILDB+0HP8ZwNo MJ9rV9mcr9p0/jIWN+2F/IinonZmF+nqf3qmAz4jujKjWdVcdQBkH2Q3PEa9ujtYO91O5eQe0ELX 0Nx3WW0k9M7xLeNp2Q80Gvgp3qsp1Koq1gEDPjzLKcLQnOQEHPyk+7QbCnaUhTjOLAOnzm/WNIE7 MX1bcY/zB0loprsynkg1SIb7RZe75OeieWIzUO97aZlYZbAHHQ9/1lSX6StAi3UhR3doDMA6AYAt qG05H2vf+PlM3jl9NvPHVLoRULV153WKH43HHUcTdmqua11qDYQ4AC5z8Y5rNE9natbSWHT2xM2N oLjustpLePaAf7yVBpaZXzQlLa9Gbbr2vrWsqpdMlSOhlLl0oYkjeqHPxxFCzRbg/bVblGB9oOkL dTp7KnQainJU8lxNEmr2ZvJF0kTDV3KiWNZWVztK98bdqbDqDVXYiBFyS/fOaYaOtUZ7qDYucEOP ExllmiuIa22lmXvNg/nzM1GXHs2eTFy6I7rbLdKGscEByOB5Si3UWVUVKHUuxPtgcCb3aAV9n2lO 0nP+YOv4zps0JqFRtp2DoN44hY5fSHmx60Kv3jW1BDlwmMnx5j9FbZdpybCMgnpMi3RblftqtyDa D2nQfjO13aOkba7qgD3doDLRi1K7M55IuFHPWCuusR7FCAZAOPKKTU3tozaPbbfjPAwMRrvobLN7 20lh/wBwfznM6AJ2faUlCc47QdfjniOMr7J8mOujD3la6mrbcz9WAx/DxjtJZa6uLVPs9GIxkTj2 6J02NbQVHIG8DE5VZoqc9ndUM9ftBJqXJOyrnj40kGqusXUJSjKueSxEXqdRb27Vo4UIMk46/CNt t0d2O0vqbHI+0E5Y+huwbLaSR39oP5yJRk72WhkxqrQqzVXMtDVkKznBGOJ2vVWpXebCrNWQBgd+ Y1rNFZtLXU+wfZ+0HEFu0SlyLafb977Qc/xjjK+yfLjqqJC9j3adrGRiWyMd3Sbu1lossKuihDja erRqn0emCtlIIbdntBn6/wAJ2x9BY+9rKS37wc/xlOEq0y7zY21ozbfcb6lrIG9A2O4dYn1rUdgL CwwG2njnxlRu0bWC03Vb1GAe0HT8ZjOg7IV9rVtDZx2nf+Ms4Su7Kxy466NWX2jWpW2FRumF97yj 79vZN2wG3HIxEmzQtYbGtoLeJcTr6jSWIVe6og9R2gl4ppOzKU4tpkmj7Male1PGPs8jOeZzVhRc 5rPcO0wP75lZt0bBc20+x7uLAMQF2jXfi6k78lvbHMz8b41Zt548uQnUGtW0mzGwMcH8Jcrq+djB vhJSfR5VUNtO1Tx9oP5ztL6GjPZW1Ln/ALgl4Jpmc5wlFHdVdbVagHs1nq23OYprSurvIKjFfUjH h3xrW6J2VntoYr0JcTLNoHLFracsMH7Qc/x8pDjK3smOSFdCadTeWZntBVQSRwCR5TtGpvexSQzI 57lwF+B/nGodBW+9Lag3j2n9YA6AP2na07s5/wAwfTMqoSpbLPNjd6HX2NTU7DDY6GTaXVWG9Usc MHGeMcR51WlYEG+khhyNwmKn0NJJS2kE/wDcH85dxlemZwnBRaZMuq1PZCwuu3dg8cxuSNdeyn2t nHHkJrOg7MJ2tO3Ocdp3/jN9vpBY1iX1CwjGS4wf4yvCX0180PgnTai6y2lHJIZTu9n4/wBIz0cA umODkFu74Tmnt06O9j6ijtG4O1gAJuu3R0DbXfUAeT9oJMIu7bKzyRppFMIn1vTfeKvziHrem+8V fnE3s5rQ6ET63pvvFX5xD1vTfeKvziLFjplmA46nwi/W9N94q/OJwarSgkjUVc/9YkP9C0PhE+t6 b7xV+cQ9b033ir84k2LE+l/1db8vqIRfpTUUWaC1UurZjjADAnqITKfZlPs//9k= ------=_NextPart_000_003D_01C83FE1.08546800-- From Miguelscirto@toofansounds.com Sun Dec 16 10:45:38 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3vgQ-00014s-Ny for ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 10:45:38 -0500 Received: from bzq-84-108-122-44.cablep.bezeqint.net ([84.108.122.44]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3vgP-0004wv-Va for ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 10:45:38 -0500 Received: from shiran-nw7u0oe6 ([154.128.3.159] helo=shiran-nw7u0oe6) by bzq-84-108-122-44.cablep.bezeqint.net ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1TpYSD-000JXI-DY for ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 17:44:22 +0200 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 17:43:46 +0200 From: "Miguel scirto" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: ntpuolen Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------000804080002060700070603" X-Spam-Score: 3.5 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 7d33c50f3756db14428398e2bdedd581 --------------000804080002060700070603 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Feel strong and confident when you'll show your big dick to your partnet! Instructions and medicine included. http://laircs.com/ --------------000804080002060700070603 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Feel strong and confident when you'll show your big dick to your
partnet! Instructions and medicine included. http://laircs.com/
--------------000804080002060700070603-- From chuck@talk21.com Sun Dec 16 10:58:50 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3vtC-0003jb-9N for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 10:58:50 -0500 Received: from dslb-084-057-017-250.pools.arcor-ip.net ([84.57.17.250] helo=84.57.17.250) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3vt8-0005Ds-13 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 10:58:50 -0500 Message-ID: <000501c84003$05a7e8ed$952ba2b9@qlduc> From: "bartholemy keane" To: Subject: Cartier Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 14:59:49 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0002_01C84003.05A74A74" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 73734d43604d52d23b3eba644a169745 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0002_01C84003.05A74A74 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Prestige replicas =20 Most popular watches Rolex Sports Models•Chanel•Jacob & = Co•Patek•Philippe =20 =20 Most popular TIFFANY & CO. JEWERLY Tiffany & CO Bracelets =20 Most popular PENS Mont Blanc Ballpoint•Louis Vuitton Rollerball•St Dupont = Fountain =20 Click here =09 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0002_01C84003.05A74A74 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Prestige
replicas

Most popular = watches

Rolex Sports = Models•Chanel•Jacob & Co•Patek•Philippe

=20

Most popular TIFFANY & CO. = JEWERLY

Tiffany & CO Bracelets

Most popular PENS

Mont Blanc = Ballpoint•Louis Vuitton Rollerball•St Dupont Fountain
Click here =09
------=_NextPart_000_0002_01C84003.05A74A74-- From Nikolaos547@ERICWAGNERINSURANCE.COM Sun Dec 16 12:02:08 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3wsS-0002tJ-3V for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 12:02:08 -0500 Received: from [85.105.164.226] (helo=dsl.static.85-105-42210.ttnet.net.tr) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3wsR-0006gg-Bc for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 12:02:07 -0500 Received: by 10.157.63.164 with SMTP id NKLBRuIeflRHp; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 19:02:17 +0200 (GMT) Received: by 192.168.171.125 with SMTP id fjNUjRkEEfgboT.6348559581545; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 19:02:15 +0200 (GMT) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 19:02:12 +0200 From: "Nikolaos cortez" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org Subject: {lliviis Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 4.1 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 08e48e05374109708c00c6208b534009 Don't feel concerned about the size of your cock anymore! This
medicine will add extra length to it! http://lakbma.com/
From umvessel@bgusa.com Sun Dec 16 13:35:38 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3yKv-0003Rt-Vu; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 13:35:38 -0500 Received: from [195.136.179.3] (helo=bgusa.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3yKv-0005br-5k; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 13:35:37 -0500 Received: from ika300a2771ce5 ([209.93.212.218]:10336 "HELO ika300a2771ce5" smtp-auth: TLS-CIPHER: TLS-PEER-CN1: ) by 3b388c3bgusa.com with ESMTP id 576F698C1821 (ORCPT ); Sun, 16 Dec 2007 19:37:00 +0100 Message-ID: <001901c8401b$06bf63c0$01309644@ika300a2771ce5> From: Nadia To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org Subject: No above Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 19:37:00 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0016_01C8401B.06BF63C0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2720.3000 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2720.2969 X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9ed51c9d1356100bce94f1ae4ec616a9 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0016_01C8401B.06BF63C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable act truly human. Without it, and others, social interaction feels excluded from many potential interesting environments if they do many paint= ers who had trained for years to be able to replicate a ------=_NextPart_000_0016_01C8401B.06BF63C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

power lines, computer terminals, and the attempt to cober up
<= /P>

Are you wanting a bi/gg er pe \nis?

As seen on TV

Ov \er 778,000 Men aro /und the world are already sat \isfied
Gain 4+ Inc /hes In Len /gth
Inc \rease Your Pe /nis Wid /th (Gir \th) By u/p-to 20%
100% Safe To Take, With NO Side Effe /cts
No Pumps! No Surgery! No Exercises!

create self-organizing machines, ones that can adapt and learn.
------=_NextPart_000_0016_01C8401B.06BF63C0-- From ippotent@ossi.com Sun Dec 16 13:40:02 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3yPB-0005KO-MJ; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 13:40:02 -0500 Received: from [82.146.247.50] (helo=nat-247-50.man.bydgoszcz.pl) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3yPB-0005jg-2G; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 13:40:01 -0500 Received: from abc ([169.146.245.105]:6829 "HELO abc" smtp-auth: TLS-CIPHER: TLS-PEER-CN1: ) by 32f79252ossi.com with ESMTP id h7HPEANS966258 (ORCPT ); Sun, 16 Dec 2007 19:40:01 +0100 Message-ID: <001101c8401b$72d649c0$06491b24@abc> From: Karyn Atkins To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org Subject: ulesbian Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 19:40:01 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000E_01C8401B.72D649C0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.0000 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1158 X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9ed51c9d1356100bce94f1ae4ec616a9 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C8401B.72D649C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable in post-war France. A few months ago I had dinner with a good intern will mean more of a Global economy; thus , the once known design, an= d a whole lot more. What is annoying is to see history ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C8401B.72D649C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

to retrieve memories through various methods, including content

Are you wanting a bi/gg er pe \nis?

As seen on TV

Ov \er 728,000 Men aro /und the world are already sat \isfied
Gain 4+ Inc /hes In Len /gth
Inc \rease Your Pe /nis Wid /th (Gir \th) By u/p-to 20%
100% Safe To Take, With NO Side Effe /cts
No Pumps! No Surgery! No Exercises!

to this. The ability to lead a completely vicarious life,
------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C8401B.72D649C0-- From CatalinathorntonBlock@congress.org Sun Dec 16 14:17:14 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3yzC-0002km-5i; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 14:17:14 -0500 Received: from [201.230.177.140] (helo=pc01) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3yzB-0006mu-NU; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 14:17:14 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host53423950.congress.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id ftYsPROQ56.035535.B14.UJX.9278422126432 for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 14:17:07 +0500 Message-ID: <3784201c84018$42dc5d70$2501a8c0@pc01> From: "Corrine Beaver" To: Cc: , =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Viagra would=20 help you to make better sex more often and to bring unimaginable = plesure=20 to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for = action in=20 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking = this=20 medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Viagra gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_3783E_01C84018.42DC5D70-- From XuankhoaRantz@rhodyrecords.com Sun Dec 16 14:48:17 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3zTF-0006hj-7u for ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 14:48:17 -0500 Received: from [79.80.0.157] (helo=[79.80.0.157]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J3zTE-0000An-O5 for ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 14:48:17 -0500 Received: from mce2005 ([136.168.142.94] helo=mce2005) by [79.80.0.157] ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1hoFFE-000AWF-zF for ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 20:50:49 +0100 Message-ID: <5A1A79C4.0A5F8B37@rhodyrecords.com> Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 20:50:19 +0100 From: "Xuankhoa Rantz" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: mokleops Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 2.6 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 7aefe408d50e9c7c47615841cb314bed enlarging your cock is only the beginning, the girls follow http://www.retzbtor.com/
From Margie663@budotim.pl Sun Dec 16 16:20:07 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J40u7-0004rK-AX for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 16:20:07 -0500 Received: from host134-170-dynamic.22-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it ([79.22.170.134] helo=host234-175-dynamic.55-82-r.retail.telecomitalia.it) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J40u6-0003XN-BU for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 16:20:06 -0500 Received: from ferraro-ad37837 by budotim.pl with ASMTP id 0342635B for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 22:20:19 +0100 Received: from ferraro-ad37837 ([119.114.103.164]) by budotim.pl with ESMTP id CAFF08B7C3AB for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 22:20:19 +0100 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 22:20:05 +0100 To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org From: "Margie Enos" Subject: djb Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 3.2 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: bb8eae9af85e4fcfe76f325e38493bf4 make the most out of sex and have multiple orgasms everytime http://www.pyxma.com/ From JoelpertTucker@boston.com Sun Dec 16 17:21:56 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J41rw-0002f5-EP; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 17:21:56 -0500 Received: from [78.181.11.145] (helo=yourf1a0c89644) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J41rv-0004zU-RX; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 17:21:56 -0500 Received: from breakthrough by boston.com with SMTP id Piou4KufEX for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 00:21:47 -0200 From: "Francis Hunter" To: Cc: , Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J41ta-00064L-M1; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 17:23:38 -0500 Received: from [190.43.42.146] (helo=pentium4) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J41tZ-00051m-9R; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 17:23:38 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host58605659.yahoo.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id O1CsAKUD46.446058.seL.N8o.1959891943933 for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 17:23:09 +0500 Message-ID: <18c6601c84032$435670a0$ca01a8c0@pentium4> From: "Joel Crawford" To: Cc: , =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Viagra would=20 help you to make better sex more often and to bring unimaginable = plesure=20 to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for = action in=20 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking = this=20 medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Viagra gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_18C62_01C84032.435670A0-- From ChaseshiverCombs@fordfound.org Sun Dec 16 20:54:26 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J45Ba-0004NX-R3; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 20:54:26 -0500 Received: from pc-30-11-47-190.cm.vtr.net ([190.47.11.30] helo=eduardito) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J45BY-0000h2-TW; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 20:54:26 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host91650986.fordfound.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id rTHrlXE168.466281.Mtx.IHc.7117979960883 for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 22:48:14 +0400 Message-ID: <1188c601c8404e$ea78a120$1e0b2fbe@eduardito> From: "Dylan Combs" To: , =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Viagra would=20 help you to make better sex more often and to bring unimaginable = plesure=20 to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for = action in=20 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking = this=20 medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Viagra gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_1188C2_01C8404E.EA78A120-- From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Sun Dec 16 22:02:22 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J46FK-0006U9-EB for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 22:02:22 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J46FJ-0001w5-4u for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 22:02:22 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J463I-000HsX-Or for ccamp-data@psg.com; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 02:49:56 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE, MIME_BASE64_TEXT,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [61.144.161.7] (helo=szxga04-in.huawei.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J462m-000Hpw-CG for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 02:49:41 +0000 Received: from huawei.com (szxga04-in [172.24.2.12]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0JT600IBWAI5QC@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 10:49:18 +0800 (CST) Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.1.24]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0JT600JKLAI3VV@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 10:49:17 +0800 (CST) Received: from l37133 ([10.70.77.63]) by szxml04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0JT600G8ZAI3BE@szxml04-in.huawei.com> for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 10:49:15 +0800 (CST) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 10:49:15 +0800 From: Dan Li Subject: Re: On Labels for Wavelength Switched Optical Networks... To: Greg Bernstein , ccamp Message-id: <052c01c84057$6948a4c0$3f4d460a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_Ad810cjgjsTDLe8cI94HZA)" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <4762AC75.3090304@grotto-networking.com> Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: 2.8 (++) X-Scan-Signature: a0534e6179a1e260079328e8b03c7901 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_Ad810cjgjsTDLe8cI94HZA) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Hi Greg, For the last part of your email, do you mean we need a field in the 32bit label to indicate this is a G.694 label? Thanks, Dan ----- Original Message ----- From: Greg Bernstein To: ccamp Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 12:16 AM Subject: On Labels for Wavelength Switched Optical Networks... Hi folks, at the Vancouver meeting the lambda label format of Otani, et. al. draft-otani-ccamp-gmpls-lambda-labels-01.txt [Otani] was presented for a second time and a few new issues seemed to arise. I'm writing this note to see if we can resolve these on the list so this work can move forward, since the label format is valuable, in general, to the control of wavelength switched optical networks (WSON). First, a general 32 bit lambda label has been defined in RFC3471. This previous label does not directly relate to either the wavelength or frequency of the light used in a lambda LSP in a standardized way (folks can use the 32 bits as they see fit). To come up with a completely general "lambda label" one could/should define both a (i) wavelength label specified in meters and (ii) a frequency label specified in Hertz (Hz). These could be specified either with a 32 bit IEEE floating point number or via a suitable 32 bit integer by suitably adjusting the base units. We could represent the frequency via a 32 bit integer in MHz, then a 193.1THz light source could be characterized by the integer 193,100,000. Similarly we could represent the wavelength label via a 32 bit integer in pico meters (10-12 meters), then a 1550nm wavelength could be characterized by the integer 1,550,000. Now any of the previous formats could be used with the 32 bit lambda label already defined. The problem here is to pick a format for interoperability and compatibility with potentially common wavelength switched control operations. Issues with the previously mentioned formats: (a) While floating point numbers provide great flexibility, as a label they have issues when it comes to comparison operations. (b) An integer format with a suitably scaled exponent is relatively simple and just leaves the choice of "exponent" to be decided. (c) Neither format contains any "context" information about the WDM system in general. The format proposed in [Otani]. avoids the above three issues and enhances common control plane operations as follows: (a) The format is integer based, hence avoids issues with floating point comparisons. (b) The format is based on the widely recognized ITU-T standard grids (ITU-T G.694.1 and .2) and fosters interoperability more than potentially any other choice. (c) The ITU-T grids come in various widths and hence have an inherent growth path. (d) The ITU-T grids come in both frequency (G.694.1) and wavelength (G.694.2) flavored versions an both are incorporated in the [Otani] label format. (e) The format includes information on the grid spacing which is important WDM context information useful in many label selection processes. For example a tunable laser associated with a 50GHz spacing WDM system could specify acceptable label range via the inclusive range label set mechanism. Note that only those frequencies (labels) that fall on the grid are supported and not intermediate frequencies. At the CCAMP WG meeting in Vancouver it was pointed out (by Lou Berger) that since a lambda label already exists and that existing implementations may make use of it that the proposed label of [Otani] would be better off referred to as a "G.694 label". With such a change I think that this label format (and accompanying draft) should move forward as a working group document. Comments, suggestions, issues? Regards Greg B. -- =================================================== Dr Greg Bernstein, Grotto Networking (510) 573-2237 --Boundary_(ID_Ad810cjgjsTDLe8cI94HZA) Content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: base64 PCFET0NUWVBFIEhUTUwgUFVCTElDICItLy9XM0MvL0RURCBIVE1MIDQuMCBUcmFuc2l0aW9uYWwv L0VOIj4NCjxIVE1MPjxIRUFEPg0KPE1FVEEgaHR0cC1lcXVpdj1Db250ZW50LVR5cGUgY29udGVu dD0idGV4dC9odG1sOyBjaGFyc2V0PWlzby04ODU5LTEiPg0KPE1FVEEgY29udGVudD0iTVNIVE1M IDYuMDAuMjgwMC4xNTYxIiBuYW1lPUdFTkVSQVRPUj4NCjxTVFlMRT48L1NUWUxFPg0KPC9IRUFE Pg0KPEJPRFkgdGV4dD0jMDAwMDAwIGJnQ29sb3I9I2ZmZmZmZj4NCjxESVY+SGkgR3JlZyw8L0RJ Vj4NCjxESVY+Jm5ic3A7PC9ESVY+DQo8RElWPkZvciB0aGUgbGFzdCBwYXJ0IG9mIHlvdXIgZW1h aWwsIGRvIHlvdSBtZWFuIHdlIG5lZWQgYSBmaWVsZCBpbiB0aGUgMzJiaXQgDQpsYWJlbCB0byBp bmRpY2F0ZSB0aGlzIGlzIGEgRy42OTQgbGFiZWw/PC9ESVY+DQo8RElWPiZuYnNwOzwvRElWPg0K PERJVj5UaGFua3MsPC9ESVY+DQo8RElWPiZuYnNwOzwvRElWPg0KPERJVj5EYW48L0RJVj4NCjxE SVY+Jm5ic3A7PC9ESVY+DQo8QkxPQ0tRVU9URSBkaXI9bHRyIA0Kc3R5bGU9IlBBRERJTkctUklH SFQ6IDBweDsgUEFERElORy1MRUZUOiA1cHg7IE1BUkdJTi1MRUZUOiA1cHg7IEJPUkRFUi1MRUZU OiAjMDAwMDAwIDJweCBzb2xpZDsgTUFSR0lOLVJJR0hUOiAwcHgiPg0KICA8RElWIHN0eWxlPSJG T05UOiA5cHQgJiMyMzQzNTsmIzIwMzA3OyI+LS0tLS0gT3JpZ2luYWwgTWVzc2FnZSAtLS0tLSA8 L0RJVj4NCiAgPERJViBzdHlsZT0iQkFDS0dST1VORDogI2U0ZTRlNDsgRk9OVDogOXB0ICYjMjM0 MzU7JiMyMDMwNzs7IGZvbnQtY29sb3I6IGJsYWNrIj48Qj5Gcm9tOjwvQj4gDQogIDxBIHRpdGxl PWdyZWdiQGdyb3R0by1uZXR3b3JraW5nLmNvbSANCiAgaHJlZj0ibWFpbHRvOmdyZWdiQGdyb3R0 by1uZXR3b3JraW5nLmNvbSI+R3JlZyBCZXJuc3RlaW48L0E+IDwvRElWPg0KICA8RElWIHN0eWxl PSJGT05UOiA5cHQgJiMyMzQzNTsmIzIwMzA3OyI+PEI+VG86PC9CPiA8QSB0aXRsZT1jY2FtcEBv cHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcgDQogIGhyZWY9Im1haWx0bzpjY2FtcEBvcHMuaWV0Zi5vcmciPmNjYW1wPC9B PiA8L0RJVj4NCiAgPERJViBzdHlsZT0iRk9OVDogOXB0ICYjMjM0MzU7JiMyMDMwNzsiPjxCPlNl bnQ6PC9CPiBTYXR1cmRheSwgRGVjZW1iZXIgMTUsIDIwMDcgMTI6MTYgDQogIEFNPC9ESVY+DQog IDxESVYgc3R5bGU9IkZPTlQ6IDlwdCAmIzIzNDM1OyYjMjAzMDc7Ij48Qj5TdWJqZWN0OjwvQj4g T24gTGFiZWxzIGZvciBXYXZlbGVuZ3RoIFN3aXRjaGVkIA0KICBPcHRpY2FsIE5ldHdvcmtzLi4u PC9ESVY+DQogIDxESVY+PEJSPjwvRElWPg0KICA8UD5IaSBmb2xrcywgYXQgdGhlIFZhbmNvdXZl ciBtZWV0aW5nIHRoZSBsYW1iZGEgbGFiZWwgZm9ybWF0IG9mIE90YW5pLCBldC4gDQogIGFsLjxB IA0KICBocmVmPSJodHRwOi8vdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaHRtbC9kcmFmdC1vdGFuaS1jY2FtcC1n bXBscy1sYW1iZGEtbGFiZWxzLTAxLnR4dCI+IA0KICBkcmFmdC1vdGFuaS1jY2FtcC1nbXBscy1s YW1iZGEtbGFiZWxzLTAxLnR4dDwvQT4gW090YW5pXSB3YXMgcHJlc2VudGVkIGZvciBhIA0KICBz ZWNvbmQgdGltZSBhbmQgYSBmZXcgbmV3IGlzc3VlcyBzZWVtZWQgdG8gYXJpc2UuIEknbSB3cml0 aW5nIHRoaXMgbm90ZSB0byBzZWUgDQogIGlmIHdlIGNhbiByZXNvbHZlIHRoZXNlIG9uIHRoZSBs aXN0IHNvIHRoaXMgd29yayBjYW4gbW92ZSBmb3J3YXJkLCBzaW5jZSB0aGUgDQogIGxhYmVsIGZv cm1hdCBpcyB2YWx1YWJsZSwgaW4gZ2VuZXJhbCwgdG8gdGhlIGNvbnRyb2wgb2Ygd2F2ZWxlbmd0 aCBzd2l0Y2hlZCANCiAgb3B0aWNhbCBuZXR3b3JrcyAoV1NPTikuPEJSPjwvUD4NCiAgPFAgY2xh c3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPkZpcnN0LCBhIGdlbmVyYWwgMzIgYml0IGxhbWJkYSBsYWJlbCBoYXMgYmVl biBkZWZpbmVkIGluIA0KICBSRkMzNDcxLjxTUEFOPiZuYnNwOyA8L1NQQU4+VGhpcyBwcmV2aW91 cyBsYWJlbCBkb2VzIG5vdCBkaXJlY3RseSByZWxhdGUgdG8gDQogIGVpdGhlciB0aGUgd2F2ZWxl bmd0aCBvciBmcmVxdWVuY3kgb2YgdGhlIGxpZ2h0IHVzZWQgaW4gYSBsYW1iZGEgTFNQIGluIGEg DQogIHN0YW5kYXJkaXplZCB3YXkgKGZvbGtzIGNhbiB1c2UgdGhlIDMyIGJpdHMgYXMgdGhleSBz ZWUgZml0KS48QlI+VG8gY29tZSB1cCANCiAgd2l0aCBhIGNvbXBsZXRlbHkgZ2VuZXJhbCAibGFt YmRhIGxhYmVsIiBvbmUgY291bGQvc2hvdWxkIGRlZmluZSBib3RoIGEgKGkpIA0KICB3YXZlbGVu Z3RoIGxhYmVsIHNwZWNpZmllZCBpbiBtZXRlcnMgYW5kIChpaSkgYSBmcmVxdWVuY3kgbGFiZWwg c3BlY2lmaWVkIGluIA0KICBIZXJ0eiAoSHopLjxTUEFOPiZuYnNwOyA8L1NQQU4+VGhlc2UgY291 bGQgYmUgc3BlY2lmaWVkIGVpdGhlciB3aXRoIGEgMzIgYml0IA0KICBJRUVFIGZsb2F0aW5nIHBv aW50IG51bWJlciBvciB2aWEgYSBzdWl0YWJsZSAzMiBiaXQgaW50ZWdlciBieSBzdWl0YWJseSAN CiAgYWRqdXN0aW5nIHRoZSBiYXNlIHVuaXRzLjxTUEFOPiZuYnNwOyA8L1NQQU4+V2UgY291bGQg cmVwcmVzZW50IHRoZSBmcmVxdWVuY3kgDQogIHZpYSBhIDMyIGJpdCBpbnRlZ2VyIGluIE1Ieiwg dGhlbiBhIDE5My4xVEh6IGxpZ2h0IHNvdXJjZSBjb3VsZCBiZSANCiAgY2hhcmFjdGVyaXplZCBi eSB0aGUgaW50ZWdlciAxOTMsMTAwLDAwMC4gU2ltaWxhcmx5IHdlIGNvdWxkIHJlcHJlc2VudCB0 aGUgDQogIHdhdmVsZW5ndGggbGFiZWwgdmlhIGEgMzIgYml0IGludGVnZXIgaW4gcGljbyBtZXRl cnMgKDEwLTEyIG1ldGVycyksIHRoZW4gYSANCiAgMTU1MG5tIHdhdmVsZW5ndGggY291bGQgYmUg Y2hhcmFjdGVyaXplZCBieSB0aGUgaW50ZWdlciAxLDU1MCwwMDAuPC9QPg0KICA8UCBjbGFzcz1N c29Ob3JtYWw+PE86UD4mbmJzcDs8L086UD5Ob3cgYW55IG9mIHRoZSBwcmV2aW91cyBmb3JtYXRz IGNvdWxkIGJlIA0KICB1c2VkIHdpdGggdGhlIDMyIGJpdCBsYW1iZGEgbGFiZWwgYWxyZWFkeSBk ZWZpbmVkLjxTUEFOPiZuYnNwOyA8L1NQQU4+VGhlIA0KICBwcm9ibGVtIGhlcmUgaXMgdG8gcGlj ayBhIGZvcm1hdCBmb3IgaW50ZXJvcGVyYWJpbGl0eSBhbmQgY29tcGF0aWJpbGl0eSB3aXRoIA0K ICBwb3RlbnRpYWxseSBjb21tb24gd2F2ZWxlbmd0aCBzd2l0Y2hlZCBjb250cm9sIA0KICBvcGVy YXRpb25zLjxCUj48TzpQPjwvTzpQPklzc3VlcyB3aXRoIHRoZSBwcmV2aW91c2x5IG1lbnRpb25l ZCBmb3JtYXRzOjwvUD4NCiAgPFAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsIHN0eWxlPSJNQVJHSU4tTEVGVDog MC41aW47IFRFWFQtSU5ERU5UOiAtMC4yNWluIj4mbHQ7IS0tW2lmIA0KICAhc3VwcG9ydExpc3Rz XS0tJmd0OzxTUEFOPihhKTxTUEFOIA0KICBzdHlsZT0iRk9OVDogN3B0ICdUaW1lcyBOZXcgUm9t YW4nOyBmb250LXNpemUtYWRqdXN0OiBub25lOyBmb250LXN0cmV0Y2g6IG5vcm1hbCI+Jm5ic3A7 Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7IA0KICA8L1NQQU4+PC9TUEFOPiZsdDshLS1bZW5kaWZdLS0mZ3Q7V2hpbGUg ZmxvYXRpbmcgcG9pbnQgbnVtYmVycyBwcm92aWRlIGdyZWF0IA0KICBmbGV4aWJpbGl0eSwgYXMg YSBsYWJlbCB0aGV5IGhhdmUgaXNzdWVzIHdoZW4gaXQgY29tZXMgdG8gY29tcGFyaXNvbiANCiAg b3BlcmF0aW9ucy48U1BBTj4mbmJzcDsgPC9TUEFOPjwvUD4NCiAgPFAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFs IHN0eWxlPSJNQVJHSU4tTEVGVDogMC41aW47IFRFWFQtSU5ERU5UOiAtMC4yNWluIj4mbHQ7IS0t W2lmIA0KICAhc3VwcG9ydExpc3RzXS0tJmd0OzxTUEFOPihiKTxTUEFOIA0KICBzdHlsZT0iRk9O VDogN3B0ICdUaW1lcyBOZXcgUm9tYW4nOyBmb250LXNpemUtYWRqdXN0OiBub25lOyBmb250LXN0 cmV0Y2g6IG5vcm1hbCI+Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7IA0KICA8L1NQQU4+PC9TUEFOPiZsdDshLS1bZW5k aWZdLS0mZ3Q7QW4gaW50ZWdlciBmb3JtYXQgd2l0aCBhIHN1aXRhYmx5IHNjYWxlZCANCiAgZXhw b25lbnQgaXMgcmVsYXRpdmVseSBzaW1wbGUgYW5kIGp1c3QgbGVhdmVzIHRoZSBjaG9pY2Ugb2Yg k2V4cG9uZW50lCB0byBiZSANCiAgZGVjaWRlZC48L1A+DQogIDxQIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbCBz dHlsZT0iTUFSR0lOLUxFRlQ6IDAuNWluOyBURVhULUlOREVOVDogLTAuMjVpbiI+Jmx0OyEtLVtp ZiANCiAgIXN1cHBvcnRMaXN0c10tLSZndDs8U1BBTj4oYyk8U1BBTiANCiAgc3R5bGU9IkZPTlQ6 IDdwdCAnVGltZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuJzsgZm9udC1zaXplLWFkanVzdDogbm9uZTsgZm9udC1zdHJl dGNoOiBub3JtYWwiPiZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyANCiAgPC9TUEFOPjwvU1BBTj4mbHQ7IS0t W2VuZGlmXS0tJmd0O05laXRoZXIgZm9ybWF0IGNvbnRhaW5zIGFueSCTY29udGV4dJQgDQogIGlu Zm9ybWF0aW9uIGFib3V0IHRoZSBXRE0gc3lzdGVtIGluIGdlbmVyYWwuPC9QPg0KICA8UCBjbGFz cz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+VGhlIGZvcm1hdCBwcm9wb3NlZCBpbiBbT3RhbmldLiBhdm9pZHMgdGhlIGFi b3ZlIHRocmVlIA0KICBpc3N1ZXMgYW5kIGVuaGFuY2VzIGNvbW1vbiBjb250cm9sIHBsYW5lIG9w ZXJhdGlvbnMgYXMgZm9sbG93czo8L1A+DQogIDxQIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbCBzdHlsZT0iTUFS R0lOLUxFRlQ6IDAuNWluOyBURVhULUlOREVOVDogLTAuMjVpbiI+Jmx0OyEtLVtpZiANCiAgIXN1 cHBvcnRMaXN0c10tLSZndDs8U1BBTj4oYSk8U1BBTiANCiAgc3R5bGU9IkZPTlQ6IDdwdCAnVGlt ZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuJzsgZm9udC1zaXplLWFkanVzdDogbm9uZTsgZm9udC1zdHJldGNoOiBub3Jt YWwiPiZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyANCiAgPC9TUEFOPjwvU1BBTj4mbHQ7IS0tW2VuZGlmXS0t Jmd0O1RoZSBmb3JtYXQgaXMgaW50ZWdlciBiYXNlZCwgaGVuY2UgYXZvaWRzIA0KICBpc3N1ZXMg d2l0aCBmbG9hdGluZyBwb2ludCBjb21wYXJpc29ucy48L1A+DQogIDxQIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1h bCBzdHlsZT0iTUFSR0lOLUxFRlQ6IDAuNWluOyBURVhULUlOREVOVDogLTAuMjVpbiI+Jmx0OyEt LVtpZiANCiAgIXN1cHBvcnRMaXN0c10tLSZndDs8U1BBTj4oYik8U1BBTiANCiAgc3R5bGU9IkZP TlQ6IDdwdCAnVGltZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuJzsgZm9udC1zaXplLWFkanVzdDogbm9uZTsgZm9udC1z dHJldGNoOiBub3JtYWwiPiZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyANCiAgPC9TUEFOPjwvU1BBTj4mbHQ7IS0tW2Vu ZGlmXS0tJmd0O1RoZSBmb3JtYXQgaXMgYmFzZWQgb24gdGhlIHdpZGVseSByZWNvZ25pemVkIA0K ICBJVFUtVCBzdGFuZGFyZCBncmlkcyAoSVRVLVQgRy42OTQuMSBhbmQgLjIpIGFuZCBmb3N0ZXJz IGludGVyb3BlcmFiaWxpdHkgbW9yZSANCiAgdGhhbiBwb3RlbnRpYWxseSBhbnkgb3RoZXIgY2hv aWNlLiZuYnNwOzxTUEFOPjwvU1BBTj48L1A+DQogIDxQIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbCBzdHlsZT0i TUFSR0lOLUxFRlQ6IDAuNWluOyBURVhULUlOREVOVDogLTAuMjVpbiI+Jmx0OyEtLVtpZiANCiAg IXN1cHBvcnRMaXN0c10tLSZndDs8U1BBTj4oYyk8U1BBTiANCiAgc3R5bGU9IkZPTlQ6IDdwdCAn VGltZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuJzsgZm9udC1zaXplLWFkanVzdDogbm9uZTsgZm9udC1zdHJldGNoOiBu b3JtYWwiPiZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyANCiAgPC9TUEFOPjwvU1BBTj4mbHQ7IS0tW2VuZGlm XS0tJmd0O1RoZSBJVFUtVCBncmlkcyBjb21lIGluIHZhcmlvdXMgd2lkdGhzIGFuZCANCiAgaGVu Y2UgaGF2ZSBhbiBpbmhlcmVudCBncm93dGggcGF0aC48L1A+DQogIDxQIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1h bCBzdHlsZT0iTUFSR0lOLUxFRlQ6IDAuNWluOyBURVhULUlOREVOVDogLTAuMjVpbiI+Jmx0OyEt LVtpZiANCiAgIXN1cHBvcnRMaXN0c10tLSZndDs8U1BBTj4oZCk8U1BBTiANCiAgc3R5bGU9IkZP TlQ6IDdwdCAnVGltZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuJzsgZm9udC1zaXplLWFkanVzdDogbm9uZTsgZm9udC1z dHJldGNoOiBub3JtYWwiPiZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyANCiAgPC9TUEFOPjwvU1BBTj4mbHQ7IS0tW2Vu ZGlmXS0tJmd0O1RoZSBJVFUtVCBncmlkcyBjb21lIGluIGJvdGggZnJlcXVlbmN5IA0KICAoRy42 OTQuMSkgYW5kIHdhdmVsZW5ndGggKEcuNjk0LjIpIGZsYXZvcmVkIHZlcnNpb25zIGFuIGJvdGgg YXJlIGluY29ycG9yYXRlZCANCiAgaW4gdGhlIFtPdGFuaV0gbGFiZWwgZm9ybWF0LjwvUD4NCiAg PFAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsIHN0eWxlPSJNQVJHSU4tTEVGVDogMC41aW47IFRFWFQtSU5ERU5U OiAtMC4yNWluIj4mbHQ7IS0tW2lmIA0KICAhc3VwcG9ydExpc3RzXS0tJmd0OzxTUEFOPihlKTxT UEFOIA0KICBzdHlsZT0iRk9OVDogN3B0ICdUaW1lcyBOZXcgUm9tYW4nOyBmb250LXNpemUtYWRq dXN0OiBub25lOyBmb250LXN0cmV0Y2g6IG5vcm1hbCI+Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7IA0KICA8 L1NQQU4+PC9TUEFOPiZsdDshLS1bZW5kaWZdLS0mZ3Q7VGhlIGZvcm1hdCBpbmNsdWRlcyBpbmZv cm1hdGlvbiBvbiB0aGUgZ3JpZCANCiAgc3BhY2luZyB3aGljaCBpcyBpbXBvcnRhbnQgV0RNIGNv bnRleHQgaW5mb3JtYXRpb24gdXNlZnVsIGluIG1hbnkgbGFiZWwgDQogIHNlbGVjdGlvbiBwcm9j ZXNzZXMuPFNQQU4+Jm5ic3A7IDwvU1BBTj5Gb3IgZXhhbXBsZSBhIHR1bmFibGUgbGFzZXIgYXNz b2NpYXRlZCANCiAgd2l0aCBhIDUwR0h6IHNwYWNpbmcgV0RNIHN5c3RlbSBjb3VsZCBzcGVjaWZ5 IGFjY2VwdGFibGUgbGFiZWwgcmFuZ2UgdmlhIHRoZSANCiAgaW5jbHVzaXZlIHJhbmdlIGxhYmVs IHNldCBtZWNoYW5pc20uPFNQQU4+Jm5ic3A7IDwvU1BBTj5Ob3RlIHRoYXQgb25seSB0aG9zZSAN CiAgZnJlcXVlbmNpZXMgKGxhYmVscykgdGhhdCBmYWxsIG9uIHRoZSBncmlkIGFyZSBzdXBwb3J0 ZWQgYW5kIG5vdCBpbnRlcm1lZGlhdGUgDQogIGZyZXF1ZW5jaWVzLjwvUD4NCiAgPFAgY2xhc3M9 TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxPOlA+PC9POlA+PEJSPkF0IHRoZSBDQ0FNUCBXRyBtZWV0aW5nIGluIFZhbmNv dXZlciBpdCB3YXMgDQogIHBvaW50ZWQgb3V0IChieSBMb3UgQmVyZ2VyKSB0aGF0IHNpbmNlIGEg bGFtYmRhIGxhYmVsIGFscmVhZHkgZXhpc3RzIGFuZCB0aGF0IA0KICBleGlzdGluZyBpbXBsZW1l bnRhdGlvbnMgbWF5IG1ha2UgdXNlIG9mIGl0IHRoYXQgdGhlIHByb3Bvc2VkIGxhYmVsIG9mIFtP dGFuaV0gDQogIHdvdWxkIGJlIGJldHRlciBvZmYgcmVmZXJyZWQgdG8gYXMgYSCTRy42OTQgbGFi ZWyULiBXaXRoIHN1Y2ggYSBjaGFuZ2UgSSB0aGluayANCiAgdGhhdCB0aGlzIGxhYmVsIGZvcm1h dCAoYW5kIGFjY29tcGFueWluZyBkcmFmdCkgc2hvdWxkIG1vdmUgZm9yd2FyZCBhcyBhIA0KICB3 b3JraW5nIGdyb3VwIGRvY3VtZW50LjxCUj48L1A+DQogIDxQIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD5Db21t ZW50cywgc3VnZ2VzdGlvbnMsIGlzc3Vlcz88QlI+PC9QPg0KICA8UCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+ UmVnYXJkczxCUj48L1A+DQogIDxQIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD5HcmVnIEIuPEJSPjwvUD48UFJF IGNsYXNzPW1vei1zaWduYXR1cmUgY29scz0iNzIiPi0tIA0KPT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09DQpEciBHcmVnIEJlcm5zdGVpbiwgR3JvdHRv IE5ldHdvcmtpbmcgKDUxMCkgNTczLTIyMzcNCg0KPC9QUkU+PC9CTE9DS1FVT1RFPjwvQk9EWT48 L0hUTUw+DQo= --Boundary_(ID_Ad810cjgjsTDLe8cI94HZA)-- From wausaubenefit.com@williamarmstrongartist.com Sun Dec 16 23:06:56 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J47Fo-0004Bv-MA for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 23:06:56 -0500 Received: from [148.243.167.27] (helo=lvrinodl) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J47Fh-0003MK-A1 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 23:06:56 -0500 Message-ID: <000301c84062$45147380$0100007f@drdbpaf> From: "Christian Cox" To: Subject: Be happy with it! Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 05:06:45 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001E_01C84062.45147380" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2905 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962 X-Spam-Score: 2.6 (++) X-Scan-Signature: bc102ac530ba955ef81f1f75b8bebe44 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_001E_01C84062.45147380 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_001_0043_01C84062.45147380" ------=_NextPart_001_0043_01C84062.45147380 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Info attached or here: http://www.scutfil.net/ ----- He lifted her up, until she wa Jamie threaded her fingers thr He met her halfway. His mouth She wanted to be appeased. A s ------=_NextPart_001_0043_01C84062.45147380 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello They were all staring at Conno Her husband dismounted first b Quinlan and Aeden moved to fla His brother obviously wanted t She assumed Alec started yelli

All three of them were drunk. They were like pigs at the tro Alec stood on her left, near t She had tried to prepare Alec When she couldnt stomach watch Alford drew her attention when Edwin burst into raucous laugh Youve been quite a nuisance, A Shes looking bored, not fright Alford shrugged indifference. My uncle is neither old nor fe Edwin laughed. Gillian fought You will leave my uncle alone, He acted as though she hadnt s As it should be, Hugh interjec You havent weasled Dunhanshire ------=_NextPart_001_0043_01C84062.45147380-- ------=_NextPart_000_001E_01C84062.45147380 Content-Type: image/jpg; name="img67.jpg" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: /9j/4AAQSkZJRgABAQEAZABkAAD/2wBDABsSFBcUERsXFhceHBsgKEIrKCUlKFE6PTBCYFVlZF9V XVtqeJmBanGQc1tdhbWGkJ6jq62rZ4C8ybqmx5moq6T/2wBDARweHigjKE4rK06kbl1upKSkpKSk pKSkpKSkpKSkpKSkpKSkpKSkpKSkpKSkpKSkpKSkpKSkpKSkpKSkpKSkpKT/wAARCAESAjkDASIA AhEBAxEB/8QAGgAAAwEBAQEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMEAgEFBv/EADkQAAICAQMCBAQFAwQCAgMBAAEC AAMRBBIhMUETIlFhM3GRoQUUMlKBI9HwFUKxwSTxkuElQ2KD/8QAGQEBAAMBAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAECAwQF/8QAKhEBAAICAAQGAgIDAQAAAAAAAAECAxESEyExBDJRUnGRM0FCgRQiYfD/2gAMAwEA AhEDEQA/APSqrRqwSOfnN+DX+37wo+Es3N3Njx0mkTMR2Y8Gv9v3h4Nf7fvNwhflY/bH0x4Nf7fv Dwa/2/ebhBysftj6Y8Gv9v3h4KZ/T95uYudq6yyrk9PlK26RtMYccz5Y+kOptCOdvlUSb85k4UsT 8pzUqWbBPecUBOAMTkm077uqMGLXlj6OS8vxyD7xu4/KIrIY4PWPxiRNreq3Ixe2PqC7LGXoYtr7 Apbd09o2xNwiAmVZD3EmLz6q28Pi9sfR+htNz7XOZ6a0VEHyc9uTPE/DsjUgH+Z9CBhgfWWi08TK cOPXlj6T+DX+37w8Gv8Ab94xuCZydbHlY/bH0x4Nf7fvDwa/2/ebhBysftj6Y8Gv9v3h4Nf7fvNw g5WP2x9MeDX+37w8Gv8Ab95uEHKx+2Potq61Ukr0955V+qNZwvJnqakE0Ng49Z4zlQ4LECc+S08W ob48GLXWsfRiW6hudyj5xqWuThuvtJPGDHgyiqwGZTNvVpGDD7Y+jtzesxZY6jgzZ9pkjcJHFb1W /wAfFP8AGPqC0usbI3c/KJr1VptAZ+M88CMA2v8AKIdduo46Ey0Xn1ZW8Pj35Y+nt11K1QbHMYtF ZB8v3MNOP/HwY2r9MUvPqrOHHryx9EeDX+37zvg1/t+83CdjHlY/bH0x4Nf7fvDwa/2/ebhBysft j6Y8Gv8Ab94eDX+37zcIOVj9sfRfg1/t+874Nf7fvNwPTmRPSE8mntj6Q6tlRgqDHrJ/Ff1zF6y1 2uwv1i1qIPmfmck2nfd01wYtdax9KRY57zQdvWKqU9CciNxK8VvVf/Hxe2PqGLLXXoftF+PZg+b7 TdqbhxFIMPjt3k8U+qs+Hxe2PplNXYbAC3HcYE9VEDUbgPN6zw2Upcc9Mz6DSDNA+UTafVTkY/bH 04laHbkd8GMeisMQF+8Khnj3zGWdM95ritMzqVL4cftj6K8Gv9v3h4Nf7fvNwnQy5WP2x9MeDX+3 7w8Gv9v3m4QcrH7Y+mPBr/b94eDX+37zcIOVj9sfTHg1/t+8j1ThLAqDEvJwDPH1Nyiwlm57THLb XSGuPDjmetY+mvFf1+06tjnvJ1sLdVwI9ORkTn4rero5GL2x9QZvb1iHvsB4b7RpHERapBzEWt6o nBi9sfUM2ai5R+vr7CP0NzXMBYcyaxN9Levab/DDi9QZbinXdlOHFvyx9PUesLYOPKY2qmslgy59 OYXdVPabrGCDIred9ycOLXlj6Y8Gv9v3h4Nf7fvGEYM5OyGPKx+2Pop6kCMQvIHrJpZZ8NvkZHEv P8XWtbRqNK6PhLNzFHwlm5Lvxfjr8QIQhDQQhCAROrbZQ3PmbgRrMEBZugnmX2m5tx/T2EyyW1Gm uOnFO0uofZ5j0k51lZORmVWqHEnGkG7PE5403tEx2dptZ8kcS9GyBE11hRjEco5kWmFoif2Z2iCd tvEf0Els6lpWCezWjX/ytw9Z7gOcETxdEcAufWezVyiyYnqxs5bw5MzN28sJid1ezCRCEJKBCEIB DtCJ1N4oTjl26CRadQmsbnRWvuCr4anJPUzxdUN2MjJlrsWJJ6nrEuoPack23O3XFNRpCqOD5eZZ QrjG4Y9ppEAPSOAkTO0VrptSTGdBFqIyUaEW/rESBvuX2jbeST6TOlG60k9BiTHZnbu9nTnNREbT wJNo23IT2MqTgxTuzsw36jOTdg5zMTur2YiEISUCEIQCcPQ56YnZNrrvDr2KfM32lbzqFqxuXlaq 1arCc55iV1AboeJq9Cc94hNOSeOJyxEOidwvouzxmPyDI6ainXrKV6Ssrw32iXAWz5x46RF/J+Ui Ez2T3eaxe+TzPd0nFW32niVea8/KexozyV9osyOp4Y/OMceU+xmFGBn3jW7+8vjnVlLFQhCdjEQh CAQhCBmzJQ464niFAbizcz2rnFdbMfTAnz2ouKMSFzmc+WImW2PpB/iDMorZSJ5S3liBtOZbSzd5 lMNa22pzzBl3CcXmM4xKLpegIhoB/wCTmcsOGYzej/d6GT+mc93r2c1zdfKGLqO6lfeNTggesiES 4/XM5NuPKJidtJ3VhLL/AA2+Rkcss+G3yMjlpeZ43zQro+Es3MUfCWbku3F+OvxAhCENBCEIGL08 WpkB808gMRY1TrgiexbYtSF27dJ5NzG602HqZhl06MOyxyTAdYAAQxMHQYpjVMQp5jVMgbY8GTvg oY5j5TJ3OKm9REIk2ghdN8z/ANz2NO39MfKeNX8CoY/UZ69H6V+UieksrQY/IBmJs/oExO3HO6ue RCEJdUQhCASTX0u6b6xu29R3/iVzNj+FWz9CBgSt43XqtWZi3R4pYGvcDDsJwqCScdTmd7TjdroP M2piszSnmA8GdJ6zCmd7GVCyf1TmnwEZvn/xOMQA8KjjTH3B+slSXo/h5/oL8hLsjePeQ6QbaQPY Skt5kkRKloNs+H/MXGWEbCP/AOoudmLrVhbuIQhNFRCEIGLrPCqLTyrHZ2Lsckz1rUFlZRuhnk31 tprNj+ZSPKZhliXRhmP2wcETigCcTO0Zms8znbtrGCKUzYgbzEvyTGGKc+fAglnTj+q09DQNne3u RINOf1tLPw/4RPrzIlm9AnyZjOuPlEM2KVPvzGqeBJrPWGdo6MQhCd8MBCEIBDt1hMWgmpwOpWRK Y7odZf4rbR+lZEyBpskfobIb0mQc5z1E45mZnq66xGujKVgHpHATM2pkbX1ptZongzk4ehlQmzBB naPLpz/JmHPX5iazjTDHciTKlu71dO39NPlH5xYBJaeKl9jHs39VPdcysSpMHEZU+0XGDqw9oudm Lysbs2fDb5GRyyz4bfIyOaS8vxvmhXR8JZuYo+Es3JduL8dfiBCE4zKoyxxImddZa6mezvWZZ1Xq 0Q95f9HA9ZkAHmcmTxUV6VbUwz/In8QZrdhqGQOsmVtwz0I6iegQMcyHUspuXw+o6zCmack9XRWv DHRnB9MQ28ToznmbxxNAsDmME5jmaHSEuOcKZOGySvqJvUPhYijJfJ7SYVlWvNlSjsJ6qHbtHtPL 0o8S8t2Wegr5P8TOyqjOQBMwrMO868E7hz5O4hCE3ZiEIQCR/iVhVa0/2s3MrZgoyTJL/wDyBtI8 omGbJWsalrirO9oIETdtDUcnle0Bgjjmc9ZiY3DqKPScUxjp6RJBUyRQpmmbAMWh4nLXwsjRsstk kesYf0qnqZNVlrM+krpG/ULx5V/5ieyr0U8tI9Y3PmSTs4yyg8Dg+8ZW2XUHsJmiYUnkN85maHKt Mztwzurmv3EIQmyghCEAHJ/meXrm8TUE5zt4E9TrnHpPFbclrK4wc9ZjlnTbFG5Z6Th6zREyROd0 OqY1TEKeY1TIlLeesnd/6kcxwDI7G/qcde0QiVFfkoYnvky/RgLpjkdhICMhV9SBPQBC1hfXr8pW UHMc04//AKEeh4T5yMPmojvuEqU42gdpETpS0dGj1M5Ot+ozk9GOzmkQhCSgQhOEgcscCJIRfiaq a1OAG7Geeg2Zz3ln4hYGsUdRtyD/ADJWGf44nJk79HXjjUDM0p5mMTo4Mo0OBgTwZhTOucKZAnds lh3zGMPIiDuRJwd14xKkG69BjOOYnsp+3o9K1E2x89R9iIlmGcZ/TjM2h3PV8jMzStTlyPaZhS24 k++IHgmdeCdxLDIzZ8NvkZHLH+G3yMjm8vJ8b5oV0fCWbmKfhLNMwQFmPAiZiI3LuwxM0rEekOWO K0Lt07DuTIXLXPl/p6TrubW3HOO00oAE8zNlm06h6GPHFY6ugcczrNgTJbPAjKaCTuf+BMaYrXno ta8VjqTZ4jVO6IzY9J56FgdzKVLes98ccSD8VU4rfsOs74wRjjbGMszKVDnmMi65vMzbOzjMFU5n GYAZzJ7bd52iSSXYTY3tNou1SB1PSCKFMdXtrG9/pIlU1T4FIQfreVUDJ9gJDp911vit0HQStn8O sAdSeZSRbT5hmdmaP0CanT4ftLnydxCEJ0shOMQoyek6fWSai3cdg6TLLkildtKV4pDObGz2nc4E yOBMu+J5MzN56uuIiIZ1NoWs5/iS1ngTmrW7xQjI23rkCcRsmdVKTWOqOKJ7HHkRbrnrNjGIMZZJ YGBEXMWOBHWtgYEUq85MlDtQ2j5yqjFVTO3Y5+cVWgY+gEzqHLsK1PAlZ6oUVsSgH7jmVp5cse/E krGbAB2EotbBVAfnKyLk5Scnaz5R8pzvOrw/ZzZO4hCE6GYhx3OISTUWt+ZCZ8oGSJS94rG5XrXi MutwMCS3UC1Tk4I6GMDHOT3mbbAiEzzL5LXs660isJAT5lbqJopxFVtnJPeOXpN/0Eum08TqxjDM zwBJSza2Fk9a7n3HtN2ZczSLt7dY2qbSN9mey9PnHmzdYxB/SMRORTSfWYQkVZPVjKdxbWSxX3OZ ZWwZ29JLUAle89lwIzRNuQkyqJVt1mZ1u05PQx+WHLPcQhCXVcYhVLMcASLXamtqdtb5J6xutsC0 lR1btPPrAYEETny3ntDfHX9mGkWUqN3KjiJGQSrDkTfi+CrZ6DpE1sXYu3ec1OL9t2wDOETa9J0i WGV6TFzYTE3wBEP52xJGaVw28yzT+XdYf8EQi/7fWMufw69o6niVnqhtbCVLZ/UZXSdpLnoqyJAc KnpK7mCU7B1brIFWlby598x1gw2RJdE2a5XYf0ia4PMxylWfob5SOWP8NvkZHOuXj+N80K6TikHH SSXWGzgjv0m7WI06KDgsft1MWg5nF4rJqOF63hK/6Vn/AJDSjiZsJ28GMmal8S3GOF5PvOPFWb20 6rTqNmaejADvzntKfeHSE9itYpGocVp4p3ImLaluQo3Qzcy7bRnv2k21rqiO7yn09tDHKll9RM5Y duPeWam8hcDvI3by+84Jt16OyOxNpYnHSZRcTZG7mDHiSkEheTzM4a9vQTPeUVrxkiJDQRUmR1EF YuCT6SZ2K2EN0aPpI2kSswiHqab4Y+U3F6blOIydHh+0sMvcQhDtOliTfetfk6sZNznnrDUsBqjg j9M4CME56TzfEWmbadmOIirTHAjtNUeHbrM6erexdhwOglU18Ph/lZnkyfqAeSM88TxdTWdPcVIw Ccgz2orU1121EWDOOk6clYmGdJ1Lyw3E4zdZnDKSvUDpMvn5GcrqYzubmbA568RY4gz9oQa1gAIE 5SMneRFKN7c9pTX0yRwJWQ5WFaEnrOBtzqfWSNaXcqxwO0fS3r2kTBD2Kj5J2Zo5qzNTqweVz5fM IQnCQASegm+2RGq1IowANxPaQPZY1htbr0ImtQfGtLDrMA7B5v4M4ss8fR10rFYNWzOAOSegjjoj dURY21j9p38PVChYDz55lnfmWxYIjrZS+Sd6h42p0x0prG7cpHWCtxPU1FC6ivY3HcGeVYj0sUsG AO/rJyU4Vsdtuloqxu06zRROWmbRpRiNTAGWigQOTONbmRpDVreIQoj0XJAHQRFI7nvG2WeFWTjk /aQH2WDhAeFj9CcBhPOR8seesv0Z83HeVkXt0E5OsJyd+Pyw5J7g8cxN+oSpODuJ6D0m7Ttqcj0n ljDHmVyX4YXpTikMzs+9jkmdZCV3Azo2r/MCwVtuMgzl79XRrTWirGpLi1cqRMa3TLpghrHkPWU6 D4jfKVW1LdWa3GQZ0VrujK9uGzyUgTO2UWadypG5fWLL9phMaaxO2bG7CZUYnGOT0hu4gNRwnMX8 Sz2HWYZj9YylccfWRIpQhfM3QTK273JMXcCyYU4Aiq3y3J80jQ9bQHggyxv1fKefo3w3PGes9B+e RNME/wCzLLDFn6G+Rkcss+G3yMjnXLxvG+aHC26xQeij/kxidJhucRizyfETu8vb8N+GvxDjnapP 8SihPDqCnr1MRjdcq9uplU6vCU1XiVzW66EIQna5x3xJNVcinJPTjHqZU7bELH+J4mou3Wk/t/5m OWemm2Ku525daXsCngzJbnrEowYk483rGhcYnNrTo/bazjCaAgZCZJH6paylUEhuJUrjibqvvvYI bCBg58o6AZ4+hk62RHRuwB5ytjWcMMiZBFwb8uWQryd7Ag8gdcDHJ/8AU6yawMUdMEZzuKgDHv8A yPqPWTwyjo9fQPuUSlus+cTV6nTsVDlCOCConp/hOqu1Js8Z92MY4A9fSaYek6ZZa/tfIvxCwrsQ HGQT/wAS3tPO15Fl6gdVGPrNsk6hjSNymCEgHPOJTpqXtO09Ack+sSEI6H+Jqo2q5Yces44iJtuX VMdNQ9QAAADtOzKPvQEcTU741ro457jvzINZeB0PBlWpsFVZOeZ4WosL8Z/UczHNb+MN8Vd9W9+7 HrO2HMVnOCOs33nO2kY4mX4jJlhmTBLFQJaVMcLg9JEztW42nE6L3ZlFjEoD5tuM4jSdG3IH57zt LMOH69jNla7BWtIt8S0ZTLrj9RGDx6CLWvVlVKhSCu4cqeOn/McKsaezoLd6Yj+k+f8AG1ekxtYA MeCMH+89D8J1N2pNnjPuxjHAHr6TXD06Mstf5PQ7STWX4/pqfnKiTtOOuJ5Y8zHd1zNMtpiNKY6x M7cCYORNkKwwZl2FbDHOZn9TzldKvQYUso4GMiWDpPOqs8G4e/E9Ec/TM6sU9HNljqxYwRCc8meZ rdSDgdYzVX7j19hPMd9z88gTHJbilrjpqNnrtbtMEDPE4p5M0Jm0YYesxnB5jmEWy9+8sg+kZ5M6 53A5kgutXo3AHTHWV2X1+AHGmVdzOoO5uMAY7+8iKkxogA1t08su0tm2wc8RFlLvahqausOE4zna WXI9Tyczn5fV7Q6MHBOAQO5OOuMdeOv2ia7Oj3idyAicniajV67SsENuBjP6R/2M/Wen+H2tdo0s dtzHOTjHczoxT00wvTX+x1i763XuRgTx1RiOvI6z2p5d6tVqbARhW8wP/P3jNG42Yp0SQTweYysc 5M6ygY2/WdnM6WqWK3oAepAMuus8Osfubge08+kF9SmOincf4mr79zM3YcKPabRbhowtXiuzqrwq kZyfWRI+7mYusLttB4E4DnAAmUb7y24dQazZ6TLCdE6eYCjkHiUacErmLbpFm+xDhWwPkImNo1s9 3Cnac5mdgds9DNaa1rktDrVYypuXedoByB1yPWD0u1zBSlfmNYQEncwxnBx6nv6xoOqL1lT19fee xWwekGeEnj1qHGorA2h+meCcHt2MLdXrNNYavHBYEg4VcRWJidomsWjT27Pht8pHF/hupu1Fd/jN u2gY4A9YydkTuNvD8fXhvEGJS7DcNuD6xoqIHOM+07T8IRkxt4alp3L0cOS0Y6x/yCUqZbmfP+3i OhCbUpFI1CZnc7kQhCWVJ1VVlte1MD3M81/wvUFNoesc5PJ/tPYxCUmkT1lpXJNezya/wq5RyyH1 wT/aM/06391f1npSXXWvX4eM7C3mI9JHKqnm2I/IW/uT69If6dce6/xGsxXSWvTcSN4wc5wJujUI xSpg4cpnJHXiRyqnNshu/C7nxhqxj1J/tOV/hWorfIao8EEEnBBGPT3M9Eaqs2BAGwTgHtGW8Uuc np1UciTy6p5tnnf6Y4UisBVY+bdYSSMg4Hl46fYR35e4GwqFQuzMSLSCN2MgHb6gc+kbRcForGXd nyBnrxzHq4NYbkAjPIk8EK8yXk2fhOoexnNleWJPJP8A2JX+G6OzSeIbGQ7sYwY6vWVWOVBb59uk K9VXY6oM5b9JIHMRSInaZyWmNH9x6YkVmkssdnDLknjMd+arNgXzYY4DY4MNRfgOibjYFJ8vaTav EpEzUpdLb6qZ06Wzp5frOVakVaSt7ASWJ549T6ylH3ORtIA6nIlOVVfm2ZorevhjxGxD6krqFpVC c88Yg2qQF8KzbP1Y7TSI0pM76savT23MNhGMSF/wnUM5O+sDPGSf7T1kdbEDpyD0iatSbLWXYdq8 ZBH3lZxxM7WjJavSEKfhVw6sh+R/+pv/AE20H9SfU/2lqahHsFZ3AsMg46/5iJ09zLZqC5ZthwB6 84leVVPNsR/p1vZlP8//AFA/h137q/r/APUsfUrWoLBtzDO3uIyp1tQOnQ+ojlVObZ5Vn4RqGYMG q+p/tMf6Nfn4lJPzP9pbXqTVZebS7YI6Dgdv7Rl9gZ6MWum4jAA4Mnl1TzbJW/Dr/wCiazWrVDGS xJznI7e5m20eqzXs8BRW4ZRkkYH6R056tz3zKX1lakjYzBWCnj/PSPyCuWyvfmTwQrzJeVd+GWtW KkatFUkjdYWOTj29hKfw3SWaPxDYU82MBTn/ADrC3UM9tHhswRnwffn6xlbZ1rrvsI25KEHA6RFI jqmckzGlPTjvJLdGzWFlIAM02q30sUVlyDhsDrg/2nNNcw01W5S7MT05xzJtXi7qRM1KOhtJyCpm ho7B/uXPpzLZPq7Wr8OtPK1h6+0pyqr82xTaOzruTr6ytwxTAIHEVZQQhNTsHHfcf+Jq3UCoDerN gckdpeKREdFZtNpRXaC6zkPWPTJMnH4PfnmyrHzP9p6j6mtdnU7/ANO0TtN63lggYFeoMpyqr820 dEA/C7R/uQ/In+07/ptw/wB1f/yP9pdbeKnRWRju6Y/9wOpVc5Vv1bRnHJ+scqqObZD/AKbd+6v/ AOR/tMt+GXEfrr+p/tL11KEPuVlZOoImfzdRFZw3nOB9cRyqnNs83/R9Qf8A9lX1P9ow/hmpNKVf 0MISd2Wzk/8AoT07rBVWztnAi11SWWbQjghd3TOB1k8uDm2TLpNWrhtml42lQS/VRgH6RY0GrXbs bTqVI2nzZUA5wM+/frKaLhXprLNz2gPjJHb6xw1CgKWU7WXcTx0/zH1k8EI5kvMs/Cr7GBBpQDgK CcD6z0tFQ1GmSt8ErnJHTrCnVJa5RchgM4Mxr221KSz1nPBAzmTFYgnJMxqVJitTSLq8f7gcgzP5 g/mDSK2OBzyM9ved1V3gV7trEk4HIx0kzG+ikTokaSzHVTA6O3HBWOa8KQpQ726LkTVNq3KSuQR1 U9RM+VVpzbFafStUtmcbnGBiIt0Nz9GrGOBkmMutZNfWCW2lc7V/mNXV1NT4oJAztx3zLTSJjSIv MTt5n+kXk/Eqx8z/AGja/wAKuX/fWfXk/wBpd+br2OxyNpwR3EW9g1IyGsSpAWbHU+3/ADI5dVub ZN/pl37q/qf7Q/02791f/wAj/aehpw60qLDlsckxkjlVRzbPKP4ZeR+uv6n+0Ufwi8nPiVfU/wBp 7UJPKqc2zyavwzUVpYo8BjYNpLFuB17TVX4fqqlABpZlbehbd5Tx6fLvPUhHLg5lnmV6HUpUayum syu3zFwcZz294u/8L1F1z2FqVLHJAJxn+Z68JPBBzJQaDRWaSu7eVbcONufedllg8jfIyOTrTyvH TxXiZV0fCWbmKPhLNyzsxfjr8QIQhDQQhCAQhCARdpcMAE3KQQRx/EZCBAdK66a5AmC7cKCOADNr XaNRS5QgKm0+YGWQHHSBHp9M9dhU11kbsq56ym8F6bFC7iVwOZuH0gQpQ/5eqp6d23JJ3cjPpKaB YtAFnmcDBzGwgSaWpxTZU67S5OJ3R02V8NWgK58/cyr+YQPPNGoLJYyl2V/3cEf4I22i4Xu6puNi YIz0Mr9feECNUxofBs8rgHgnqc/4JRp6vBpVCPNjknqZtkRipZclTke07jjgGE6TW1v+cruVdwUY POMTAqtrOoCoXS0dQccyz+YQgvTVGmhK2IJHWIqqtpsvG39eSpyOvMr6Q+hhPVBXp70vrtKksMhj u69v+DOHT3f1HClWLBlO4f5/6noYh1Pcwd0d1Vr2V3eGrEDDoTKql2oBhRz0XpNYAPQ/zDHvmRuD WkBot23pt+IeGyOmYy+mzdRsXIrPXMrnB14/56yex8IHTDvYunLV53cOOccd/wCZaf6tOBxvWZGn rHG04znaSSPp0je2IQgFFw8BdgIrbOQRnr6RgpdtZc5UqrrtBJGRK8mECOpL00rUGvgDAO4czFFV 1JqdUbcPKwLDkfWXwhJdRtLOLFCqD5SO4mNVS1oRq2AsQ5XMfiB9+P4g0Qr6g8NWiHuxOc/xE6qi 62x+Cy7RtHQA/wCZlvofSECF6rmOn3Vc19eRGaRLEtuZ0wGORKoQJtagtq2A+bII56f5/wBTmo0x C0mtd3hN+n1lG1GfftBbpNR0J2l8B3uutIK702hSYpKNRjTqUUeG3Xd7y/GeYc454/iDRWqINBVl U7jgDdjP8xFGargr1EO67Q2QTwOkqdFsXDDIznjiC1qpyBk+pOT9TAn0lDiiyqxNuT6ziaRzpGpY +cjaOegz0leB6CHSEEaVHUf1KwhAwT6zOure2pVRMnOTyJTDpAmWuxNabdhKMvY9/wDBO62p7aFC jJDZIBlA46Q/gfSBLYjnUVagJnbwUyM/5zNaalq2tsbINjZwT0lHSHeBLYj/AJxbRWxVUxkEe8Su mtbRtWylTv3gEg5noQzAksqsbSOPAVSx/SCJvD/lNor84wACRzj+ZRD+TA4u4qC4w2OcTsIQCEIQ CEIQCEIQM2fDb5GRyyz4bfIyORLzvG+aFdHwlm5ij4Szcl24vx1+IEIQhoIQhAIQhAIQhAIQhAIQ hAIQhAIQhAIQhAk1e4aikK7AOfMAx55E5Yxp1VYqYnccOpYmGtBe6kCsvtbnykjqJSldag+GgTI7 LgzHUzMuncRWsyW+qrQk4YopwzDoJ2zUpUyBgWD8KVHBk9FCoLKrUsPOepwZrUqRZpwtZARhwATg ZEjitraYpTi0euoU3CplZSRkcdYurwzrX+IHxkjPHaZsDf6jWwVsBcHg/wCd4V5H4lY+xtpGAccd o4p3/aOGNf0Z+aXazKjOq9SuI7gr8/eQLXYrI1W9GLDeuDtAnoZ9ecHtL0tM72pkrWsxpBQyi24W 2OFVsAFyO5jq2On05tcu6kggnrjj1itNhX1DWV2AOePITn7TtzM9FlaUuFUAKCDyJnEzEbbTETbX wcdXWqq5R9jdyOkVreNTpj6tj+MiZ1AZtFSoVieMjB9DNarLXUEI3lbJ4PqIm1p3/SK1rE/Z7XqL jUqszAZIXH/c4moV6DaqsQvUHqMRLhvzb7lZKyv6lXlunU4zM6ZGTSXqysCc8AHnIk8Vt6RwV4d/ By6ytgnDAOeCR9po6pNrsqOypwWAGP8AmY0aA6ZN48yZzuHv7ybo9yhbQjHI8MAg+scVoiJ2mMdJ tMR+lg1KGkWEOAThRjJJ9OJqq1Xdk5V16qeskcJdVVZQr7KnwVxzKaUqFrPWrAnuxOT9ZNbWlS1a REs6/I0zOCwIIxgn1ibiF0iWK7CwqCPP1/iO12Tp2RVJLdAAeeZrTVp4aZrAYKBkjnpFombaTSYi kTPq4uqDMq7GNm0EqO3T1nDqQ+laysHIB64yDiLcMdW+5WSsr+pF5b5nE5pK2/KX1spDEnGflxI4 rb0twU1v4N0txegNaG4BJfgA8+kDq0VQ5VhWxwG4/vFVobPw804dX2nIIx3+kZSwala7KTvHRSuf vFbTqEWrXczHqWrbPxG3AYjbkAZ64EoqvW8sFBBU4IMTSGH4jY20gMuAQpx0ENHkW3llcbmyCRIr Non+zJWs1+IhvXZGlZwSrAjGCYm0hdGli2OLCBjzHnj0jtdltOyKpJboADzzEmn+jXbWD4lYA2kf qk2ieKdGLUVibeqi3UGlEa1GyQM49Z03qWVVVju7jnEVZY11SVipwX4OVJ2+8xpPFod6GRmUnh+Z PFMTpHBE1mZ7rep64/iGJi6vxVC7nXHocTtNXhD9TN7t1mu52w1GttQhjEJKohCEAhCEAhCEAhCE AhCEAhCEAhCEAhCEDNnw2+Rkcss+G3yMjkS87xvmhXR8JZuYo+Es3JduL8dfiBCEIaCEIQCEIQCE IQCEIQCEIQCEWL6zvw36P1DHSH5ioVeLvG09M94DIRaaiuxGdGBCjJgdRSK1sLeVjgGAyEXZqKas h3APpNqysoYHgjOYHYYz2MUNVS1m3xAD6SbVXj82lTWFFA5I9f8AMQlf17EznTjmQtctmt8M2stY 4GO544lB1VQcIXAYdc9PrAdk+sO2Iu2+qlcu4wemIh9YqapVZh4ZXJPp1gVwk5tJ1NYW1QhXJGOv Wb/MVeG1m4bVOCcHiEG9YZMW99aIGLqAeR6/SdrtSxdyNuEJ23kwzF23V0gGxgAekEvqsJCOpx1g 2Z168w7xJ1dAcL4gOZt7q1cIzYZuQMQhthvVlbkMMRKabw18NLXVe6idGpqNbWB/IpwTjpOm6oeG C3xP08SJrErRaYarqSpdiDAznnrNRNupqqba7gHE21taBS7gBhkcxEaRMzPdudHToYuq1Ll3VncA cZ95I1ws1uxrGWscDHc8cSRd7H7wiTqqVcIzgN0M3ZdXVw7qDjIxA3z25/md/n+BMVulqBkOVaR6 PVIlR8WzzFoF2T6w7AdhFvdXWgZnUZ6dzOrdU9ZcOu0d4G4RSail2ZVsBIGT7TdTrYoZTkHvA1DH zi7L6qiBY+0nsInU2rZpbDXYMgjvAqI55GIAfMyejVUstaGwbioz9JmyxxdevjDArJCgHIOPXEIV dISGmx1o02bANzHdkEk8zen1gZ2SwjO7CH15gVwiKLD4lwstDKrcADG3mar1FVrbEcE9uMQG/wAZ hz6CY8RTYa8+f0kv4a7ObSzE4xj7wLYQhAIQhAIQhAIQhAIQhAIQhAzZ8NvkZHLLPht8jI5EvO8b 5oV0fCWbmKPhLNyXbi/HX4gQhCGghCEAhCEAhCEAhCEAnR2+c5CB51+/T2WqgDLcMDnoZq7TWV0U 4XxNh8wA655laUVJZ4ip5vUnMZAhqrdrLn8Lw1ZMBTxEkXNpEp8BvI3X6z1IQJEq3fiFhes4KjqO M4lNilqWVQOV6e81kwxA8yukhRXauoyD/t/TH21g66o+HldnPlHXmWfyYQJEp/8AyFh8PyY4z68S cUsoZLlvYE//AKzkGen3zCBDfWyW1Wis2Iq4KnrDUKw1KXLQXXbgrj/mXQ/kwI2Vm11LGsqAnOO3 WLam5RZplryjtnd956GTCBFqaHV6mUOyoMZQ8iM0aKN5UWjPXxO8pxAknqcwI9XW4vS3wi6gcr15 i663Nt7eAyBqiAMd56EIHmtSRoah4RDhueOcc/8A1H2Bl1qNVW/OAxPTErzDJ9TxA85qrgLNMqZS x87sdP8AOJqpLbbaRZXtWnv3Mv8Ap6wHAwIHnNS6W2b1u2uetR6/OasqA/LKqOVB5DAZxmXwycwM oqqMKu0enSTJTn8QsJryu3Iz0zxK4QPLNVorek0FmY5FmMx7VEaugMhICYPHHeWwgAAUEKMAdBie alP/AINgNZL7uOPlPShAgtpt/oWbXIVRnaeRA1j8pd4aXZYj4gGTz2l87k5zmBKKU/JgGrkoM4HM 1ot/g4dduDgHGOI/+T9YQIb1avVvcaPEVhxgZx0EWKnFOpHhlSSCox7z0v8AuHr7wPNKWWJVUNKU Ixl8e3yjTW41OoPhnBq2g++BLYdYHnrU4TSA1t5X831naUZNU6/ltwZsg46cy/vmECAU2MNUApXL ZGRjvOU1ZatWTUblbv0E9D6wz7wI0BTWtsRgjfqLf9TWjQp4g8Hw8n1zKsmEAhCEAhCEAhCEAhCE AhCEAhCEDNnw2+Rkcss+G3yMjkS87xvmhXR8JZuYo+Es3JduL8dfiBCEIaCEIQCEIQCEIQCEIQDH zgevTEl1ztmulDguck56TtOpUaMWsCduAYFMIhNUjuU8wIXcTjticr1tNlmwEqScc9DAo59j7zuP mZHRYi2agl2wh6NjjmKs1S320iouAWAIPGeRA9CdA9jMu6opZjhQM5kNmpF1tIrLAFsEdjAvhJ7d ZVW5RixwOSIHWVqiOVYiw4H1gUQk66ytqncZ8nXMK9ZVZaqAOC3qMYgUQk/5yvdgBj5sbtvl+sLd ZVVYyNuLD06QKISezWU127MsfU44E2b08VawCSwyDAbCJGprPiZ3KKzgkj3m6rBbXvAI+cDc6B7G TW6yqqxkbJYDt/ExqblfTpYjsvmA4/75gV/50hIWdvzOoAc4WokYPfAm6dQtekrNjMWYnA6k8wK4 QHIz0GM8yZ9fQhbJYhe4ECmEnfV1oUUhsuoYdJ1dVUaDcThemO+YFGPY/wB5yQrqBdratjNjacg/ zKr7kpQu7EDOB7n0gMhEtqUU1+V/6nABEDqaxZYmGBRdxgOh/GZMNdSwJ5AAz0952rWVXMqKGy/y GIFH+YhJNLctemexnLYYjkYz7RjaqtKRY24Buin9UB4+RMOkm/NJatioHBVCczWhJbSoSSSSevzM B8JPZrKq7ShLEjqccCdt1dVThG3ZZdwxAfCKr1NT1GwNgL1z1E5Tqq7XCjcrHoGGMwHQk1etpsba N468kdJw/iFAzw3BwOIFUOfY+8jXVMNYyHcUPAGBwZqixFs1DF2wh6HtzAqhEUauq99q7gcZ8w6x f+oU4GQ4JOOnSBXDn2PvFHUVrcaRuLcZwM4+cVoyxuv3EkBsCBVCHSEAhCEAhCEAhCEAhCEDNnw2 +Rkcss+G3yMjkS87xvmhXR8JZuYo+Es3JduL8dfiBCEIaCEIQCEIQCEIQCHGRCECRtGbbmstYgHp tMF0bL4teQamGRk95XCBLp9IybzY25mXbn2mKdHYHQWONiNlQJbD194Eo0rEXrYw/qHjBmBpLyai 9iHw2GMDtLe2IfxAxfWLamQ8Z9O8lXSXZrLuD4bDAAHSWw/9QI7NLaHs8NwFfqCJ0aR9unG4f02J PvzK4QJBpTt1G45V+QFGTxFaWhxqEbFm1Qclxj6T0IYgQHQMpOBW67sjcSDKEoZdW1rEFGAH2j4Q IrNFYzuFceHYcsD1m7tLZ4tb1OFKrtz7SqECSrS2KtwsKO1hyM9DG6alqairHPp7R0IEDrY2vtFb hTtHUZ7CbOif8stauC+8Mc9JZ/AhAmOmc33Pxh02jPy/+phtJYdKlRKB15JOeOe0swIQOKAAqlie MZ9ZE2iuCWVpavhnnBA6y6ECZdNZ49VhKkIgXr84tNE35U1sV3bgwIlsOhzAkr01wuS2x1JGRwBH aqvxqWVduT+7tG9IQJLNLaa6lWzzV8hj9YJprxZa7sGLptzK4YHpAmTTldCaXJ3AZ8vJ65iNNS51 CPmwLWvJsGPpPQxCBGNCx0r1FxkvvXHrN3ae25KyxXxl79jKYQJE0twstZmDb02+nP8AEfpa2p06 1sfMIzAPaECKzRWF3VXXw7Dlh3mb1ZdbSiOFITAJGQOsv7Q/iBKujPg2rY2Wc8kDico0tldgZlrz zzuOekrhAn0+nauhq3x5j1EQdHd4YrFi7FbIGJf1OYfxAm8C0asWq6gMPN7jEyulYi9XYYtORgyz H/qcgSU6WxLVsudSUXau30mPyTnTGrcufE3Z9pdD6QJ307tqUt3qoXB4zzNUVuj2s7bgzcR0IB0h CEAhCEAhCEAhCEAhCEDNnw2+Rkcss+G3yMjkS87xvmhXR8JZuYo+Es3JduL8dfiBCEIaCEIQCEIQ CEIQCEIQCEIQCEIQOFlDBSwye3eBYBwpIBxnBkOtRn1iBDhtpIPoZxLRdrqWK4YKQR785gehCQjW 2Z37F8HO3PeWuwRCx6YyIHYSKrXFrFDAbWOOAcj5zb33Lb4IRDYx8pzxiBV9DCQI1v8AqL7Qp5GR k9PWMr1F1l7IqKVV+Tn/AGwK4SE624q9iVKa1OMyyty1KuRyVBgamWdVIDMoLdMyMa9jb+kFM42j O75xbNc2tfbWrEDv2ED0dy7iodSw7Ts83R2tVXbcyLtH+7uT6R2n1TtaK7VUb1ypU9IFkJ5/5nU2 6diK02jOWBm9LbZXoyxTco/Tz155+kCxmCAFmAGcczsgvZtRo1c7AQ/XOAJcx2qSQAByflA4XXcF 3Lu9JqeSb18Y3b8tv4GOoluo1JrsRVC4bncTxAphOOwRGYjoMyKrXF7VBVSrcYGcj5wLoSN9VcbL BVWGWvOc/wAwbWOtFb7Blyck5wOYFkJJdqmS1VG3BQt684J/6j9NY1tKswALHtAZCRvqri9ng1qy oOcwbWOtFb7Blyck5wOYFnOQAMwyOfaZJZq8qQDjqOZP+G5NL5OTvwSYFR75IAHcxP5qjfs8QZju vlwDmedrq6yyU1IviE9R2gejFam8aereV3ZOJtBsrUEjpwfWL1ZxXgOisTlSx7wFU69bLAjJtycD nMr6Tyi2zViy1ltOQcp0zPSturq/Wygk8D1gbkev1DLiqs+Yclh6Sm+zwaWfGcek8s3IKLd+82Pj nAwOYFv4e5NDszchjyx7YlKkEAqQQe4nn6Owfl7q8c4LZMq0S7NKinHGenzgPhCEAhCEAhCEAhCE AhCEAhCEAhCEDNnw2+Rkcss+G3yMjkS87xvmhXR8JZuYo+Es3JduL8dfiBCEIaCEIQCEIQCEIQCE 4GBYoCNw5xAMCSAQSODjtI3C2pdhOB1YZVlI9QYIyuMqykZx1jaNTH6dhMC2skf1E+WZrcgYKWAJ 7d44oTwz20waFbUJduO5RjE5+Wr/ADAvUsG7iMLLu2lwrYyBM+LWV3eIuM4HMbg1M/or8jT4u/Dd c7e2ZQQCCCOGGJxmCgMWABPrAsqDLMoHz6xuDhn9QSmkWtl222AKchQ3Ag2krYszF9zHO7PIjFdC Dh0I7maVgygq2R6iImJ7HDruU2mRrxad27j+cTVdKVWOwYkscmbZ1XG5gPmZ3OE3EgAdTG0TEpW0 FLMT5hnoAeJSihECr0AxBWDAMpU+hB6zsmJiSYmE/wCUTcdlliAnJVTxGCgC5rQW3MMdoyBGYQVX pq0rasZKsckETNOkroYspJbpk9o+EBVenrrqasbirdROVaVKkdVZgWxyOI4n36e8OYT17kHRVGrw /MFzk+5jLahZUa8sueM4mmYKQCwBY4GTOn5/eR0NSV+Wp8PZt7YzjmZ/KIRWrOzKnYkx+YSUDAKk HkEY5iF0mwjbZYAP9oPEfOYEBFuiptcsQwz1we86dKngrUXYKO2esf2xCBNqKWcLWlfH78/p/wAE oVQgCrwBwJ2ECe3RU2uWbcM9cHvO/lU8Fai7BR2z1jnZVXLFQCe879JHRPXu4FCrgcDtEHTFKDXV ZtLHOTKISUMV1iqoIGPA6yc6CoksXsJPoZXDO0Ek8AZgTLpCHXzsa07Exl9Feo27wfL0xGFgAHLe XscwBBbaCCe+O0jcLcMp69BTWwPmb2PA+0wdLZdqt923YuMYHEq8RME71xnGc95rtiNwjhmO4+hm La1tQo3APoJucLDeF3AHGcZjsmNyXVp1qqatSxDes1TWtNYRCSo9Zv8An7wkqiEIQCEJwsNwXcoO M4MjsmNy7CAHT3mQytkKckdY6GpahCElAhCEAhCEAhCEDNnw2+Rkcss+G3yMjkS87xvmhXR8JZuY o+Es3JduL8dfiBCEIaCEIQCEIQCEIQIyRT+Isz9LFwp/z5feK0uoSt9RYejZYe4yZZfQmoUK+4Y6 FZl9HVYEB3AIMYHec9q23uHXXJTXVLn8t+HdQHtOR7f4Jr8OsUWtSpBXAI+eOf8AuVPQlliu2fLw F7TjaaverqNhTkbeI5domNHNpMTv9vMrFTVEGtvFZsI3YdI7UVO19KbvOK8595WNHWtJry+A24HP IM34Cm5bstuQY56GVjHK8567+0ldnja6okYIXDD35iAP/A//ANf+p6X5asagXDcG+xmPyVRr8LL7 d27g8xy7SiM1dx/SLUMy0DTsPOj5B9RHuEv1xrt4RRwOmZRfpq9TjcCCOhEL9Ml+0tkFRjI4k8uU c2mvQgLp1e6upSGFZ78R+iUppkU4zz0+cymjqQEDeSVKk5yY2qsU1itc4HQmXrWYnqzyXrNdRKDX Otuo2lsKi8e5hqb3s0VbDHJw3PeWJpakBBTfk5y4EydFUVKZcBjnHHHy+szml+s+rWMtI1HojJvT VIAiq6jyrnjvKNRrDXa1abcjqWBOT7YjrdMl7h23ZA7Hkws0yWvuBZG6EocEyYpeInUqzkx2mNwS +rfZQ9aA+IcEEymk2FFNiAP3AmPyqt4eWY+HyD1JjevHftNaxbczMsr2pqIrCEa2/wAI2+EpRThj nmNt1T760pQMzjPPYRWm/D1ZM3Ljzdj1HHEpt0tV+3cpUrwCvBx6fKZVjJNe7a04ot2SW6i22i1W VVCsM89IxNQ9OhD2BdxIC89eIxdHSlboA218cE9MTQ0lS0mrBKk5yesmKX9ScmLtr9ptUz50pdQb CckDt0xKNHe9xsV0ClDid/K1kVgs58I8cj7zddK1OzqWO85OekmtbcW1LXpNNa6ltc66uurA2suc 95hdW5F7bAwrbACjk8xl+krvZWbcCBjjrBNJXWrqpcCzrg9PlJmL8XRETj4dlnVldJ4pClicALz9 ZrS6lrnZHAyBkFQcGb/KU+F4Ww7Sc575nadP4TbhZY3GMMciNX3E7JnHwzEQxq72oCqqgu/TMzqN RbWyVIqm1lzjPEddQl6BGGPQjqJi3S13KA24EDG4Hn+ZNovO9GOcca3BL61vywsRV3BtpHrNVauz xLFurVQqlusY2kqeoVDcoBzkdSfeaGnrFrWnJLDaQekrw5N91uLHrWkGousvqVmrAQtlSD85Tdqr FtaupAdi5YsZ06CnDfr5ORz0+U3fo6b3DMCD0yMcyvDeNrzfFOoKs1b7KGRB/VyMH1mPzt2yw+Gv kOCfSUnTVt4eAyio5AH/AHMnSVlLRlv6hyTn+Zaa39Va2xa7MW6tlNQCqN6g7ieJU4VlYMPKRg/K KbS1uEDbyKwMAHiMYb0ZSTyMS9Yt12xtNemujzK1Vr1pez+kpOMnr7R2tHhXeJWwDsDlQeo9ZR+T pNQr2sApyD3zNeAnim0jLMMc9BxMuXPDpvzazMSivRE0Fe0hgXBJz1M9IHjsflJzoqjUa8sFJ3de k7TpUocsrOSexOZekWiVL2ravdzVahqAm1Qdx6t0EU7g6+k7VJ2E8H59O0pupW9drl8ZyQpPMy2l rdw2WBC7Rzx/nMWi0zKKWppNVq9RZaFCIQCM49PrD/UDv6ApnGB+r+0amgqRlYM5K9ASMTf5NN5Z WdBnO1TgSkVya7rzfD6HOwStnPIAzgSOrWu1qbkASw4WWYBGOoIwYivRU12B8MSOgJ4HymlovM9G eOaRE7JfWXq1u2tSqNjPtmDHfrqH4z4ef+Y46SsraMsPEOSczQ06LbW4J3IuAD0lOC/q0i+OO0f+ 0nr11hKDCeawr39v7zejXZbqOeN/r7zVVJOp8V0CBeig559Y2uhaXdxnNhyQekmtbbjaL2rETEQZ /OYQhN3KIQhAIQhAIQhAzZ8NvkZHLLPht8jI5EvO8b5oEIQkOEQhCAQhCAQhCAQhCAQhCAQhCAQh CAQhCAQhCAQhCAQhCAQhCAQhCAQhCAQhCAQhCAQhCAQhCAQhCAQhCAQhCAQhCAQhCAQhCAQhCAQh CAQhCAQhCAQhCAQhCAQhCAQhCAQhCAQhCAQhCB//2Q== ------=_NextPart_000_001E_01C84062.45147380-- From Todor829@huelbusch.de Sun Dec 16 23:16:38 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J47PC-0002pS-UJ for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 23:16:38 -0500 Received: from 221.pool85-50-116.dynamic.orange.es ([85.50.116.221] helo=[90.163.22.158]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J47PC-0003Ut-8Q for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 23:16:38 -0500 Received: from windows-1agu40w ([194.185.63.80] helo=windows-1agu40w) by [90.163.22.158] ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1Nftwn-000YQL-Vj for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 05:12:57 +0100 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 05:12:43 +0100 To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org From: "Todor Pollack" Subject: kasiliit Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: bb8eae9af85e4fcfe76f325e38493bf4 impress the girls with your new enlarged whopper http://www.rggogle.com/ From ctpyfo@bobs-sports.com Mon Dec 17 01:09:35 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J49AV-0003cn-Dn; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 01:09:35 -0500 Received: from [202.83.118.28] (helo=dubbo-gw-2.becom.net.au) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J49AT-0005G7-G1; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 01:09:34 -0500 Received: from [202.83.118.28] by inc22smtp1.ddc.dartmail.net; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:09:26 +1000 From: "Lupe Mccray" To: Subject: Hey Baby Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:09:26 +1000 Message-ID: <01c840c7$31e7bf00$1c7653ca@ctpyfo> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2527 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8ac499381112328dd60aea5b1ff596ea Hey you I was wondering if you wanted to maybe chat and exchange Pictures? I read your Profile online and you seem very intresting Email me at Pipper@SimOldGlory.info and I will reply with a Picture and info right away. From Kraemer@hitachijc.or.jp Mon Dec 17 03:06:46 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4Azt-00075q-Vk for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 03:06:46 -0500 Received: from [84.76.42.98] (helo=[84.76.229.155]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4Azt-0007A2-83 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 03:06:45 -0500 Received: from rira ([132.145.129.36] helo=rira) by [84.76.229.155] ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1ciSTS-000XCN-eS for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 09:07:31 +0100 Message-ID: <000401c84083$ce178340$9be54c54@rira> From: "Yajun Kraemer" To: Subject: onaru Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 09:07:02 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0006_01C8408C.2FDBEB40" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464 ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C8408C.2FDBEB40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Wazzup ccamp-archive Become really well healthy in 2008! http://catcolony.com Yajun Kraemer ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C8408C.2FDBEB40 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Wazzup ccamp-archive
Become really well healthy in = 2008!
http://catcolony.com
Yajun Kraemer
------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C8408C.2FDBEB40-- From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Mon Dec 17 04:18:02 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4C6s-0002xs-72 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 04:18:02 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4C6r-0000MP-HC for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 04:18:02 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J4Bpq-000MQQ-Bj for ccamp-data@psg.com; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 09:00:26 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE, RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [193.180.251.60] (helo=mailgw3.ericsson.se) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J4BpH-000MLk-7h for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 09:00:11 +0000 Received: from mailgw3.ericsson.se (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mailgw3.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 1D0D020F76; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 09:59:09 +0100 (CET) X-AuditID: c1b4fb3c-ae794bb0000030cf-ff-47663a5ca44b Received: from esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.254.121]) by mailgw3.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id E9742208C4; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 09:59:08 +0100 (CET) Received: from esealmw110.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.200.78]) by esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 17 Dec 2007 09:59:08 +0100 x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C8408B.1556104D" Subject: RE: On Labels for Wavelength Switched Optical Networks... Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 09:59:20 +0100 Message-ID: <0428AC48A879ED46A94F39D5665DF684E5DF3C@esealmw110.eemea.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <4762AC75.3090304@grotto-networking.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: On Labels for Wavelength Switched Optical Networks... Thread-Index: Acg+bummec4oBBqjTUK/OmIaHQaRDQCGzQTA From: "Diego Caviglia" To: "Greg Bernstein" , "ccamp" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Dec 2007 08:59:08.0607 (UTC) FILETIME=[158A34F0:01C8408B] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: ee8eaa76ea6a4fb3ccc9059a3f656ffc This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C8408B.1556104D Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable HI Greg, Thanks for this very useful summary. =20 I'm one of the author of this ID so my comment is not fully neutral :-) = btw in IETF we always state that the data plane is not part of our work = and in-fact we rely as much as possible on other standard bodies (IEEE, = ITU-T, ...) for data plane definition. =20 For G.709 and G.707 (SDH) we used as label what was defined in the = ITU-T. As example the RFC4606 defines the SONET/SDH label as extension = of the numbering scheme defined in G.707. =20 My view is that we already have a standard body (ITU-T) that defined how = to identify a wavelength and that definition fits well in our 32 bits = format so IMHO it is straightforward to use that definition. =20 My two cents Diego =20 ________________________________ From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On = Behalf Of Greg Bernstein Sent: venerd=EC 14 dicembre 2007 17.17 To: ccamp Subject: On Labels for Wavelength Switched Optical Networks... =20 Hi folks, at the Vancouver meeting the lambda label format of Otani, et. = al. draft-otani-ccamp-gmpls-lambda-labels-01.txt = = [Otani] was presented for a second time and a few new issues seemed to = arise. I'm writing this note to see if we can resolve these on the list = so this work can move forward, since the label format is valuable, in = general, to the control of wavelength switched optical networks (WSON). First, a general 32 bit lambda label has been defined in RFC3471. This = previous label does not directly relate to either the wavelength or = frequency of the light used in a lambda LSP in a standardized way (folks = can use the 32 bits as they see fit). To come up with a completely general "lambda label" one could/should = define both a (i) wavelength label specified in meters and (ii) a = frequency label specified in Hertz (Hz). These could be specified = either with a 32 bit IEEE floating point number or via a suitable 32 bit = integer by suitably adjusting the base units. We could represent the = frequency via a 32 bit integer in MHz, then a 193.1THz light source = could be characterized by the integer 193,100,000. Similarly we could = represent the wavelength label via a 32 bit integer in pico meters = (10-12 meters), then a 1550nm wavelength could be characterized by the = integer 1,550,000. Now any of the previous formats could be used with the 32 bit lambda = label already defined. The problem here is to pick a format for = interoperability and compatibility with potentially common wavelength = switched control operations. Issues with the previously mentioned formats: (a) While floating point numbers provide great flexibility, as a = label they have issues when it comes to comparison operations. =20 (b) An integer format with a suitably scaled exponent is relatively = simple and just leaves the choice of "exponent" to be decided. (c) Neither format contains any "context" information about the WDM = system in general. The format proposed in [Otani]. avoids the above three issues and = enhances common control plane operations as follows: (a) The format is integer based, hence avoids issues with floating = point comparisons. (b) The format is based on the widely recognized ITU-T standard grids = (ITU-T G.694.1 and .2) and fosters interoperability more than = potentially any other choice.=20 (c) The ITU-T grids come in various widths and hence have an inherent = growth path. (d) The ITU-T grids come in both frequency (G.694.1) and wavelength = (G.694.2) flavored versions an both are incorporated in the [Otani] = label format. (e) The format includes information on the grid spacing which is = important WDM context information useful in many label selection = processes. For example a tunable laser associated with a 50GHz spacing = WDM system could specify acceptable label range via the inclusive range = label set mechanism. Note that only those frequencies (labels) that = fall on the grid are supported and not intermediate frequencies. =20 At the CCAMP WG meeting in Vancouver it was pointed out (by Lou Berger) = that since a lambda label already exists and that existing = implementations may make use of it that the proposed label of [Otani] = would be better off referred to as a "G.694 label". With such a change I = think that this label format (and accompanying draft) should move = forward as a working group document. Comments, suggestions, issues? Regards Greg B. --=20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D Dr Greg Bernstein, Grotto Networking (510) 573-2237 =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C8408B.1556104D Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

HI = Greg,

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 = Thanks for this very useful summary.

 

I’m one of the author of this = ID so my comment is not fully neutral J btw in IETF we always state that the data plane is not part = of our work and in-fact we rely as much as possible on other standard bodies = (IEEE, ITU-T, …) for data plane definition.

 

For G.709 and G.707 (SDH) we used = as label what was defined in the ITU-T.=A0 As example the RFC4606 defines the = SONET/SDH label as extension of the numbering scheme defined in = G.707.

 

My view is that we already have a = standard body (ITU-T) that defined how to identify a wavelength and that = definition fits well in our 32 bits format so IMHO it is straightforward to use that definition.

 

My two = cents


Diego

 

From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org = [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Greg Bernstein
Sent: venerd=EC 14 = dicembre 2007 17.17
To: ccamp
Subject: On Labels for = Wavelength Switched Optical Networks...

 

Hi folks, at the Vancouver meeting the lambda label format of Otani, et. al. draft-otani-ccamp-gmpls-lambda-labels-01.txt [Otani] was presented = for a second time and a few new issues seemed to arise. I'm writing this note = to see if we can resolve these on the list so this work can move forward, since = the label format is valuable, in general, to the control of wavelength = switched optical networks (WSON).

First, a general 32 bit lambda label has been defined in RFC3471.  This = previous label does not directly relate to either the wavelength or frequency of = the light used in a lambda LSP in a standardized way (folks can use the 32 = bits as they see fit).
To come up with a completely general "lambda label" one = could/should define both a (i) wavelength label specified in meters and (ii) a = frequency label specified in Hertz (Hz).  These could be specified either = with a 32 bit IEEE floating point number or via a suitable 32 bit integer by = suitably adjusting the base units.  We could represent the frequency via a = 32 bit integer in MHz, then a 193.1THz light source could be characterized by = the integer 193,100,000. Similarly we could represent the wavelength label = via a 32 bit integer in pico meters (10-12 meters), then a 1550nm wavelength = could be characterized by the integer 1,550,000.

 Now any of the previous formats could be used with the 32 bit lambda label = already defined.  The problem here is to pick a format for interoperability = and compatibility with potentially common wavelength switched control = operations.
Issues with the previously mentioned = formats:

(a)    While = floating point numbers provide great flexibility, as a label they have issues = when it comes to comparison operations. 

(b)   An integer = format with a suitably scaled exponent is relatively simple and just leaves the = choice of “exponent” to be decided.

(c)    = Neither format contains any “context” information about the WDM system in = general.

The format proposed in [Otani]. avoids the above three issues and enhances = common control plane operations as follows:

(a)    The = format is integer based, hence avoids issues with floating point = comparisons.

(b)   The format = is based on the widely recognized ITU-T standard grids (ITU-T G.694.1 and .2) and fosters interoperability more than potentially any other = choice. 

(c)    The = ITU-T grids come in various widths and hence have an inherent growth = path.

(d)   The ITU-T = grids come in both frequency (G.694.1) and wavelength (G.694.2) flavored versions = an both are incorporated in the [Otani] label format.

(e)    The = format includes information on the grid spacing which is important WDM context information useful in many label selection processes.  For example = a tunable laser associated with a 50GHz spacing WDM system could specify acceptable label range via the inclusive range label set = mechanism.  Note that only those frequencies (labels) that fall on the grid are supported = and not intermediate frequencies.

 
At the CCAMP WG meeting in Vancouver it was pointed out (by Lou = Berger) that since a lambda label already exists and that existing = implementations may make use of it that the proposed label of [Otani] would be better off = referred to as a “G.694 label”. With such a change I think that this = label format (and accompanying draft) should move forward as a working group document.

Comments, suggestions, issues?

Regards

Greg B.

-- 
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Dr Greg Bernstein, Grotto Networking (510) =
573-2237
 
------_=_NextPart_001_01C8408B.1556104D-- From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Mon Dec 17 08:56:53 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4GSj-0002qX-EB for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 08:56:53 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4GSi-0008Gh-KX for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 08:56:53 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J4GCw-000Lpj-HG for ccamp-data@psg.com; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 13:40:34 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [192.26.91.6] (helo=mandala.kddilabs.jp) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J4GCQ-000LmI-AT for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 13:40:19 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mandala.kddilabs.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6653AEC8E3; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:40:01 +0900 (JST) Received: from platinum.inc.kddilabs.jp (unknown [2001:200:601:1300:20a:48ff:fe12:3f1]) by mandala.kddilabs.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DC5FEC8AE; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:40:00 +0900 (JST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (c012.vpn.kddilabs.jp [172.19.87.12]) by platinum.inc.kddilabs.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id F38B4578111; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:39:56 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <47667C2B.4090100@kddilabs.jp> Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:39:55 +0900 From: Tomohiro Otani User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Diego Caviglia , Greg Bernstein Cc: ccamp Subject: Re: On Labels for Wavelength Switched Optical Networks... References: <0428AC48A879ED46A94F39D5665DF684E5DF3C@esealmw110.eemea.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <0428AC48A879ED46A94F39D5665DF684E5DF3C@esealmw110.eemea.ericsson.se> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0770535483960d190d4a0d020e7060bd Hi Greg and Diego, Thank you for your initiation and clarification. As Diego clearly pointed out, we actually rely on the data plane which=20 is especially defined by ITU-T. All transmitters, MUX/DEMUXs, ROADMs and WSS's follow the ITU-T frequency (wavelength) grid now. In that sense, it is=20 advantageous for us to compliant with that specification in terms of the control plane. Furthermore, taking advantage of this e-mail message, I would like to=20 clarify, again, the label format definition. During the meeting, there seems to be an=20 misunderstanding about the label definition. It has some bits to indicate a wavelength spacing,=20 but this info. is utilized only to calculate the wavelength value for switching, not to control the=20 channel spacing of the node itself. Regards, Tomo Diego Caviglia =E3=81=95=E3=82=93=E3=81=AF=E6=9B=B8=E3=81=8D=E3=81=BE=E3=81= =97=E3=81=9F: > > HI Greg, > > Thanks for this very useful summary. > > I=E2=80=99m one of the author of this ID so my comment is not fully neu= tral J=20 > btw in IETF we always state that the data plane is not part of our=20 > work and in-fact we rely as much as possible on other standard bodies=20 > (IEEE, ITU-T, =E2=80=A6) for data plane definition. > > For G.709 and G.707 (SDH) we used as label what was defined in the=20 > ITU-T. As example the RFC4606 defines the SONET/SDH label as extension=20 > of the numbering scheme defined in G.707. > > My view is that we already have a standard body (ITU-T) that defined=20 > how to identify a wavelength and that definition fits well in our 32=20 > bits format so IMHO it is straightforward to use that definition. > > My two cents > > > Diego > > -----------------------------------------------------------------------= - > > *From:* owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] *On=20 > Behalf Of *Greg Bernstein > *Sent:* venerd=C3=AC 14 dicembre 2007 17.17 > *To:* ccamp > *Subject:* On Labels for Wavelength Switched Optical Networks... > > Hi folks, at the Vancouver meeting the lambda label format of Otani,=20 > et. al. draft-otani-ccamp-gmpls-lambda-labels-01.txt=20 > =20 > [Otani] was presented for a second time and a few new issues seemed to=20 > arise. I'm writing this note to see if we can resolve these on the=20 > list so this work can move forward, since the label format is=20 > valuable, in general, to the control of wavelength switched optical=20 > networks (WSON). > > First, a general 32 bit lambda label has been defined in RFC3471. This=20 > previous label does not directly relate to either the wavelength or=20 > frequency of the light used in a lambda LSP in a standardized way=20 > (folks can use the 32 bits as they see fit). > To come up with a completely general "lambda label" one could/should=20 > define both a (i) wavelength label specified in meters and (ii) a=20 > frequency label specified in Hertz (Hz). These could be specified=20 > either with a 32 bit IEEE floating point number or via a suitable 32=20 > bit integer by suitably adjusting the base units. We could represent=20 > the frequency via a 32 bit integer in MHz, then a 193.1THz light=20 > source could be characterized by the integer 193,100,000. Similarly we=20 > could represent the wavelength label via a 32 bit integer in pico=20 > meters (10-12 meters), then a 1550nm wavelength could be characterized=20 > by the integer 1,550,000. > > Now any of the previous formats could be used with the 32 bit lambda=20 > label already defined. The problem here is to pick a format for=20 > interoperability and compatibility with potentially common wavelength=20 > switched control operations. > Issues with the previously mentioned formats: > > (a) While floating point numbers provide great flexibility, as a label=20 > they have issues when it comes to comparison operations. > > (b) An integer format with a suitably scaled exponent is relatively=20 > simple and just leaves the choice of =E2=80=9Cexponent=E2=80=9D to be d= ecided. > > (c) Neither format contains any =E2=80=9Ccontext=E2=80=9D information a= bout the WDM=20 > system in general. > > The format proposed in [Otani]. avoids the above three issues and=20 > enhances common control plane operations as follows: > > (a) The format is integer based, hence avoids issues with floating=20 > point comparisons. > > (b) The format is based on the widely recognized ITU-T standard grids=20 > (ITU-T G.694.1 and .2) and fosters interoperability more than=20 > potentially any other choice. > > (c) The ITU-T grids come in various widths and hence have an inherent=20 > growth path. > > (d) The ITU-T grids come in both frequency (G.694.1) and wavelength=20 > (G.694.2) flavored versions an both are incorporated in the [Otani]=20 > label format. > > (e) The format includes information on the grid spacing which is=20 > important WDM context information useful in many label selection=20 > processes. For example a tunable laser associated with a 50GHz spacing=20 > WDM system could specify acceptable label range via the inclusive=20 > range label set mechanism. Note that only those frequencies (labels)=20 > that fall on the grid are supported and not intermediate frequencies. > > > At the CCAMP WG meeting in Vancouver it was pointed out (by Lou=20 > Berger) that since a lambda label already exists and that existing=20 > implementations may make use of it that the proposed label of [Otani]=20 > would be better off referred to as a =E2=80=9CG.694 label=E2=80=9D. Wit= h such a change=20 > I think that this label format (and accompanying draft) should move=20 > forward as a working group document. > > Comments, suggestions, issues? > > Regards > > Greg B. > > --=20 > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D > Dr Greg Bernstein, Grotto Networking (510) 573-2237 > =20 From ujoiqikh@disky.nl Mon Dec 17 09:14:06 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4GjO-0001qb-Cv for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 09:14:06 -0500 Received: from [216.104.204.45] (helo=disky.nl) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4GjK-0000L0-F8 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 09:14:05 -0500 Message-ID: Reply-To: "Frankieh Berger" From: "Frankieh Berger" Subject: inconsistent harding To: Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:13:32 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9182cfff02fae4f1b6e9349e01d62f32 Presenting the energy Co to be in for rest 2007 ENERBRITE TECHNOLOGI Symbol : ETGU Energy sector is hot right now, and everyone wants in About the Co We have two strategic objectives: ~ to become a market leader in developing and marketing innovative and intelligent energy saving solutions that achieve significant savings in the cost of energy and substantial improvements in energy conservation to the benefit of both consumers and the environment ~ to be an integrator of smart automated lifestyle systems that control the interior environment (climate, entertainment, lighting, security) of residential and professional spaces Ride this winner for easy double or triple bagger If the last half-hour feels thrown together, "Constantine" director Francis Lawrence mostly makes a virtue of the lean script, getting in and out quick, suppressing those inevitable nagging questions (are cockroaches immune?), always stressing Neville's solitary isolation. OBERLIN, Kansas (AP) -- A postcard featuring a color drawing of Santa Claus and a young girl was mailed in 1914, but its journey was slower than Christmas. It just arrived in northwest Kansas. The Christmas card was dated December 23, 1914, and mailed to Ethel Martin of Oberlin, apparently from her cousins in Alma, Nebraska. TRENTON, New Jersey (AP) -- New Jersey on Friday became the first state to require flu shots for preschoolers, saying their developing immune systems and likelihood of spreading germs make them as vulnerable to complications as the elderly. It's a mystery where it spent most of the last century, Oberlin Postmaster Steve Schultz said. From mbeginner@oxclove.com Mon Dec 17 10:13:08 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4HeW-0001Yn-L7; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 10:13:08 -0500 Received: from marcin6870.net.autocom.pl ([213.134.174.51]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4HeW-0002Ec-1q; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 10:13:08 -0500 Received: from Marcin [196.13.8.72] (port=16537 helo=Marcin) by 33ae86d5oxclove.com (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id 3315748222CE12 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:13:25 +0100 Message-ID: <001301c840c7$c0b535f0$00a5c5ec@Marcin> From: recherche a To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org Subject: by functional Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:13:25 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0010_01C840C7.C0B535F0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2720.1081 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2720.0000 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: a7d6aff76b15f3f56fcb94490e1052e4 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0010_01C840C7.C0B535F0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Chapter Four - Art and Architecture: The Role of Technology Design/Drafting application. The AutoCad design package is a professional artists, etc. who come from different locations and ------=_NextPart_000_0010_01C840C7.C0B535F0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

opens an anarchic realm of interrelationships and interactions of

Are you wanting a bi/gg er pe \nis?

As seen on TV

Ov \er 700,000 Men aro /und the world are already sat \isfied
Gain 4+ Inc /hes In Len /gth
Inc \rease Your Pe /nis Wid /th (Gir \th) By u/p-to 25%
100% Safe To Take, With NO Side Effe /cts
No Pumps! No Surgery! No Exercises!

'phone. Later that night, Benny cavorts dangerously on the
------=_NextPart_000_0010_01C840C7.C0B535F0-- From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Mon Dec 17 10:13:44 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4Hf6-0001r7-Ok for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 10:13:44 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4Hf5-0002G0-8Z for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 10:13:44 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J4HP7-0005QI-9h for ccamp-data@psg.com; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:57:13 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [62.128.201.248] (helo=asmtp1.iomartmail.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J4HOj-0005MG-8T for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:57:01 +0000 Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.8) with ESMTP id lBHEulpH012808 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:56:47 GMT Received: from your029b8cecfe (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lBHEuhA4012744 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:56:45 GMT Message-ID: <02e101c840bd$08eaa090$9200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Subject: Draft response to the OIF Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:50:46 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7e439b86d3292ef5adf93b694a43a576 Hi, The OIF sent us a communication (http://www.olddog.co.uk/oif2007_382_01.pdf) with some specific questions about the use of GMPLS protocols. Here is a draft response. Thanks to Lou Berger for the bulk of this text. Comments please before I send this around Christmas. Thanks, Adrian === To : Lyndon Ong, OIF TC Chair Cc: Ross Callon, IETF Routing Area Director David Ward, IETF Routing Area Director Subject: Response to Your Questions about GMPLS Protocol Usage Dear Lyndon, Thanks for your communication dated 29th November 2007 and your subsequent email exchange with clarifications. Please find below responses from CCAMP experts to the questions you posed. May we take this oportunity to stress that we are open to receiving such questions in a less formal way either directly or through the CCAMP mailing list, and may be able to provide timely responses during the course of your testing events. > 1) One of the features provided in the OIF UNI 2.0 is the ability to > non-disruptively modify service attributes associated with an LSP. The > modification of the service attributes is limited to LSPs that were > initiated using Shared Explicit filter style. Modification is performed > by signaling a new LSP that utilizes the same Tunnel ID as the original > LSP but with the new service parameters. Once the new LSP state is > established, the original LSP state is removed. There are two distinct options for modifying an LSP. The first is "in-place" modification where a new trigger Path message is sent for an existing LSP. The second is the "make-before-break" approach to tunnel/service modification first introduced in RFC 3209. You appear to be refering to the latter case since you mention a new LSP. > Non-disruptive modification was demonstrated in the 2007 > interoperability test by modifying the bandwidth of an LSP realized by a > SONET/SDH VCAT group. In the process of testing, a number of questions > arose regarding the RESV message flow. These questions included: > > - How many RESV messages are expected to be generated? Is it one since > the resources in use by both LSPs are the same, or two since the LSPs > are handled through separate signaling sessions. In make-before-break, each LSP is signaled independently. Per LSP Resv messages should be expected. Assuming the old LSP is in-place at the time of signaling the new LSP, and only one Path message is issued, then only one Resv would be expected. That is, a Resv for the new LSP, but no further Resv for the existing LSP. When the old LSP is also modified as part of the make-before-break, e.g., to update administrative status prior to alarm-free tear-down, then a Resv message on the old LSP may also be generated. > - What is the bandwidth amount that should be reflected in the RESV > messages? If separate RESV messages are generated for both LSPs, is it > the bandwidth requested in the corresponding PATH message? Or is it > the actual bandwidth being provided by the connection at the time the > RESV message is generated? According to RFC 4606: For a particular sender in a session, the contents of the FLOWSPEC object received in a Resv message SHOULD be identical to the contents of the SENDER_TSPEC object received in the corresponding Path message. If the objects do not match, a ResvErr message with a "Traffic Control Error/Bad Flowspec value" error SHOULD be generated. Again, in make-before-break, each LSP is signaled independently. > In the interop test both approaches were observed. To facilitate the > subsequent demonstration, receivers were expected to handle both cases. > > 2) In the process of testing, we found that not all implementations > included Explicit Route Objects (ERO) in PATH messages when performing > graceful deletion, even though earlier PATH messages for the LSP had > included an ERO. For some intermediate node implementations, the lack of > the ERO was seen as removing the 'pinned' nature of the connection, > causing the node to interpret the PATH message as requiring a new path > computation which may end up using a different route. Other > implementations utilized the Session and Sender Template to relate the > received PATH message with the existing connection thereby identifying > the path the message should be forwarded on. This approach was taken by > these implementations since inclusion of an ERO is not mandatory. We > would appreciate CCAMP's thoughts on what the behavior should be. As described in RFC 2205, Path and Resv messages are idempotent. This means that any Path message reflects full state, and differences between one Path message and a subsequent Path message may be reasonably considered an explicit change. Therefore, while there is no explicit requirement stated in RFC 3473, it is typical to only modify the Admin Status Object in Path messages sent in connection to RFC 3473 section 7.2.1. deletion procedures (i.e. to include the full ERO as on previous Path messages). It may be observed, however, that while an implementation detecting a change in ERO (such as the removal of the ERO) may legitimately opt to reroute, that implementation should also note the change in Admin Status associated with the graceful deletion and may "assume" that such a reroute would be a waste of time. Further, in a transport system, implementaitons should only perform local reroutes (deviating from in-place LSPs) with extreme caution since these risk impacting traffic. > 3) In the process of testing, we found cases where the update of a > link's attributes (i.e. available capacity) was not being done by > advertising an updated LSA using the same LSAid, but by flushing the old > LSA followed by generation of a new LSA with a new LSAid. Since the > LSAid for Opaque LSAs is not tied to the resource being advertised > (i.e. the resource is identified using TLVs in the Opaque LSA, not using > the LSAid as is done with IPv4 OSPF LSAs), this can cause a problem as > it causes the order that the LSAs are processed to become important. We > would appreciate CCAMP's thoughts on what the behavior should be. The OSPF WG, is the proper WG to respond to this as they are the authoritative source on OSPF technology. From our perspective, RFC 2328 dictates the use of the same Link State ID when advertising a change in a link's information. While it is certainly possible to advertise a change via issuing an LSA with a new Link State ID and flushing old state, from the perspective of OSPF this is not a change in link state, rather a completely new link. > 4) Finally, in the process of testing, we found cases where established > connections were deleted based on node restart procedures in RFC > 3473. R163 of the OIF Carrier requirements (liaised to IETF in 12/2006) > states deletion of established connections as the result of control > plane failure (including node restart) shall not occur. It has been > identified this could also occur when a number of cascaded nodes restart > at the same time. We would appreciate CCAMP's thoughts on ways to > prevent deletion of established connections from occurring when a node > restarts. Without specific details, it's impossible to address the found cases or to identify if they were due to implementation or specification issues. More broadly, RFC 3473 does not require the removal of forwarding state, even in the case of state synchronization errors, and implementations may take different action (such as reporting the condition to a management station). An implementation at a restarting node may consider that the lack of control plane state at its neighbor indicates that the removal of forwarding plane state has been attempted through the control plane while the restarting node was down and should follow local policy in determining how to react. We would also like to direct you to RFC 5063 and draft-ietf-ccamp-gr-description which may provide additional relevant information. We hope this addresses your questions. Best regards, Adrian Farrel and Deborah Brungard IETF CCAMP working group co-chairs From nat663@wellness-concept.de Mon Dec 17 10:56:24 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4IKO-0005p3-Ar for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 10:56:24 -0500 Received: from host106-45-dynamic.0-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it ([79.0.45.106]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4IKN-0003Wi-Q8 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 10:56:24 -0500 Received: from goku ([102.124.19.81] helo=goku) by host106-45-dynamic.0-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1nLxlX-000UVY-IR for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:56:40 +0100 Message-ID: <72BD9173.DEE67AE3@wellness-concept.de> Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:56:24 +0100 From: "nat Dent" User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org Subject: vuenezac Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 2.4 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 8ac499381112328dd60aea5b1ff596ea hello ccamp-archive Best Weight Loss Pills - Why be ugly forever? I know how to help you lose weight. http://beatopposite.com nat Dent From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Mon Dec 17 11:35:49 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4IwX-0007pV-Ej for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 11:35:49 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4IwW-0007SX-43 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 11:35:49 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J4IlS-000FZ5-R3 for ccamp-data@psg.com; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:24:22 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE, STOX_REPLY_TYPE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [62.128.201.249] (helo=asmtp2.iomartmail.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J4Il4-000FVQ-El for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:24:10 +0000 Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.8) with ESMTP id lBHGNsIf004269 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:23:54 GMT Received: from your029b8cecfe (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lBHGNjcv004065 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:23:52 GMT Message-ID: <030501c840c9$3272fd20$9200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Subject: Liaison received from ITU-T on T-MPLS ring protection Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:18:45 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: ffa9dfbbe7cc58b3fa6b8ae3e57b0aa3 Hi, We received a liaison from the ITU-T that reads as follows... SG15 Q9 has nearly completed its work on a recommendation for T-MPLS Ring Protection - G.8132. It is targeted to consent this new recommendation in the next SG15 plenary meeting scheduled for Feb., 2008. We have attached the latest draft for your information and comments. We are requested to comment by 11th February 2008. At first glance, this work appears to concentrate on the data plane only and so is not within our scope. The MPLS working group was also copied and can handle any issues concerning the MPLS data plane. As always, you can see all incoming and outgoing communications for CCAMP at www.olddog.co.uk/ccamp.htm Thanks, Adrian From tengfly@qq.com Mon Dec 17 14:13:54 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4LPW-0004YR-NX; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:13:54 -0500 Received: from [77.210.65.154] (helo=nombre-29b8ccbf) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4LOe-00047W-CY; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:13:08 -0500 Received: from [77.210.65.154] by mx0.qq.com; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 20:12:47 +0100 Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 20:12:47 +0100 From: "Duane Tanner" X-Mailer: The Bat! (v2.10.01) Business Reply-To: tengfly@qq.com X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <529834087.17173075937632@qq.com> To: call-home@ietf.org Subject: Re: watch_Duane MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 2.1 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 6d62ab47271805379d7172ee693a45db Christmas is around the corner, Buy your Gifts now and save time and money We carry everything you are looking for http://www.ultricipanty.com From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Mon Dec 17 16:23:25 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4NQr-0002XZ-Jv for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:23:25 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4NQr-0001Ui-3w for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:23:25 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J4NET-000KjT-4h for ccamp-data@psg.com; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 21:10:37 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-202.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE, USER_IN_ALL_SPAM_TO,USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [156.154.16.158] (helo=ns0.neustar.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J4NDx-000Khk-6B for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 21:10:22 +0000 Received: from stiedprstage1.ietf.org (stiedprstage1.va.neustar.com [10.31.47.10]) by ns0.neustar.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39E5632870; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 21:10:02 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ietf by stiedprstage1.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1J4NDu-0002Sc-4p; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:10:02 -0500 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D Action:draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-eval-05.txt Message-Id: Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:10:02 -0500 Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 32b73d73e8047ed17386f9799119ce43 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Common Control and Measurement Plane Working Group of the IETF. Title : Evaluation of existing GMPLS Protocols against Multi Layer and Multi Region Networks (MLN/MRN) Author(s) : J. Le Roux, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-eval-05.txt Pages : 16 Date : 2007-12-17 This document provides an evaluation of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) protocols and mechanisms against the requirements for Multi-Layer Networks (MLN) and Multi-Region Networks (MRN). In addition, this document identifies areas where additional protocol extensions or procedures are needed to satisfy these requirements, and provides guidelines for potential extensions.Conventions used in this document The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-eval-05.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-eval-05.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-eval-05.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2007-12-17160517.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-eval-05.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-eval-05.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2007-12-17160517.I-D\@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Mon Dec 17 16:24:08 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4NRY-00035m-M4 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:24:08 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4NRY-0002DA-4Q for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:24:08 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J4NKz-000LEE-Uw for ccamp-data@psg.com; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 21:17:21 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE, STOX_REPLY_TYPE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [62.128.201.249] (helo=asmtp2.iomartmail.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J4NKR-000LAl-8Q for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 21:17:06 +0000 Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.8) with ESMTP id lBHLGhML019697 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 21:16:45 GMT Received: from your029b8cecfe (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lBHLGeRw019668 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 21:16:42 GMT Message-ID: <034801c840f2$1cf34f30$9200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Subject: Update: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-eval-05.txt Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 21:16:32 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 32b73d73e8047ed17386f9799119ce43 Hi, Only changes are format and I-D nits necessary to advance the I-D to the AD for review. Adrian ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Cc: Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 9:10 PM Subject: I-D Action:draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-eval-05.txt >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >directories. > This draft is a work item of the Common Control and Measurement Plane > Working Group of the IETF. > > > Title : Evaluation of existing GMPLS Protocols against Multi > Layer and Multi Region Networks (MLN/MRN) > Author(s) : J. Le Roux, et al. > Filename : draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-eval-05.txt > Pages : 16 > Date : 2007-12-17 > > This document provides an evaluation of Generalized Multi-Protocol > Label Switching (GMPLS) protocols and mechanisms against the > requirements for Multi-Layer Networks (MLN) and Multi-Region Networks > (MRN). In addition, this document identifies areas where additional > protocol extensions or procedures are needed to satisfy these > requirements, and provides guidelines for potential extensions.Conventions > used in this document > > The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", > "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this > document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119. > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-eval-05.txt > > To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to > i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of > the message. > You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce > to change your subscription settings. > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the > username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After > logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then > "get draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-eval-05.txt". > > A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in > http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html > or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > > Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. > > Send a message to: > mailserv@ietf.org. > In the body type: > "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-eval-05.txt". > > NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in > MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this > feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" > command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or > a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers > exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with > "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split > up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on > how to manipulate these messages. > > Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader > implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the > Internet-Draft. > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > I-D-Announce mailing list > I-D-Announce@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce > From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Mon Dec 17 16:40:59 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4Nhr-0001YN-Oa for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:40:59 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4Nhp-0002j4-LI for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:40:59 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J4NWb-000MFC-Kz for ccamp-data@psg.com; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 21:29:21 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE, STOX_REPLY_TYPE,USER_IN_ALL_SPAM_TO autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [62.128.201.248] (helo=asmtp1.iomartmail.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J4NW2-000MCO-EW for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 21:29:06 +0000 Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.8) with ESMTP id lBHLSP4S021042; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 21:28:26 GMT Received: from your029b8cecfe (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lBHLSHpf020995; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 21:28:25 GMT Message-ID: <034f01c840f3$bd511f60$9200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "Ross Callon" Cc: , "WG Milestone Tracker" , Subject: Please publish draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-reqs-07 Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 21:25:39 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -3.8 (---) X-Scan-Signature: 86f85b2f88b0d50615aed44a7f9e33c7 Here is the proto write-up for draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-reqs-07 Thanks, Adrian === Proto-write-up for draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-reqs-07 Intended status : Informational Recommend that this I-D is progressed in parallel with draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-eval-05.txt requested for publication at the same time. > (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the > Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the > document and, in particular, does he or she believe this > version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? Adrian Farrel is the document shepherd. He has personally reviewed the I-D and believes it is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication. > (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members > and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have > any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that > have been performed? Long list of authors/contributors. This document has been reviewed by the CCAMP working group and discussed quite extensively at IETF meetings and on the mailing list. In addition, the I-D received thorough review on liaison from Question 14 of Study Group 15 of the ITU-T. These reviews have been sufficiently deep and broad. > (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document > needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, > e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with > AAA, internationalization or XML? No concerns. > (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or > issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director > and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he > or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or > has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any > event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated > that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those > concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document > been filed? If so, please include a reference to the > disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on > this issue. The document is sound. An IPR disclosure can be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/518/ and was filed against the -00 version of this I-D when it was still an individual submission. This was brought to the attention of the working group, but no-one had any issues. Since this is an Informational Requirements I-D, it might be unlikely that there would be any implementation of the I-D to be impacted by the IPR claim. > (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it > represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with > others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and > agree with it? There were no problems with consensus for this document. > (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme > discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in > separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It > should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is > entered into the ID Tracker.) No threats. No discontent. > (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the > document satisfies all ID nits? (See > http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and > http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are > not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document > met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB > Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? All checks made. > (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and > informative? Are there normative references to documents that > are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear > state? If such normative references exist, what is the > strategy for their completion? Are there normative references > that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If > so, list these downward references to support the Area > Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. References split. No downrefs. > (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA > consideration section exists and is consistent with the body > of the document? If the document specifies protocol > extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA > registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If > the document creates a new registry, does it define the > proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation > procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a > reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. If the > document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd > conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG > can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? This is an Informational I-D. A null IANA section is present. > (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the > document that are written in a formal language, such as XML > code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in > an automated checker? No such sections. > (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document > Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document > Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the > "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval > announcement contains the following sections: > > Technical Summary > Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract > and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be > an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract > or introduction. Most of the initial efforts to utilize Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) have been related to environments hosting devices with a single switching capability. The complexity raised by the control of such data planes is similar to that seen in classical IP/MPLS networks. By extending MPLS to support multiple switching technologies, GMPLS provides a comprehensive framework for the control of a multi- layered network of either a single switching technology or multiple switching technologies. In GMPLS, a switching technology domain defines a region, and a network of multiple switching types is referred to in this document as a Multi-Region Network (MRN). When referring in general to a layered network, which may consist of either a single or multiple regions, this document uses the term, Multi-Layer Network (MLN). This document defines a framework for GMPLS based multi-region/ multi-layer networks and lists a set of functional requirements. > Working Group Summary > Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For > example, was there controversy about particular points or > were there decisions where the consensus was particularly > rough? There was some unresolved debate about the term "virtual TE link" and whether it should be replaced with "potential TE link". However, since the former had been in use for a long time and was used in published RFCs, and since there was not great support for a change, we retained "virtual". > Document Quality > Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a > significant number of vendors indicated their plan to > implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that > merit special mention as having done a thorough review, > e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a > conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If > there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, > what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type > review, on what date was the request posted? This is an Informational I-D with no protocol specifications. Expert review of multi-layer network architecture was received from the ITU-T. From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Mon Dec 17 17:15:40 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4OFQ-00038j-Ak for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:15:40 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4OFP-0003P6-EP for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:15:40 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J4O1G-000P25-85 for ccamp-data@psg.com; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:01:02 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE, STOX_REPLY_TYPE,USER_IN_ALL_SPAM_TO autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [62.128.201.248] (helo=asmtp1.iomartmail.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J4O0k-000OwM-1L for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:00:47 +0000 Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.8) with ESMTP id lBHLSQH4021048; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 21:28:26 GMT Received: from your029b8cecfe (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lBHLSHpg020995; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 21:28:26 GMT Message-ID: <035001c840f3$bf07d010$9200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "Ross Callon" Cc: , "WG Milestone Tracker" , Subject: Please publish draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-eval-05 Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 21:28:10 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 1449ead51a2ff026dcb23465f5379250 Hi, Here is the proto write-up for draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-eval-05 Thanks, Adrian === Proto-write-up for draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-eval-05 Intended status : Informational Recommend that this I-D is progressed in parallel with draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-reqs-07.txt requested for publication at the same time. > (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the > Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the > document and, in particular, does he or she believe this > version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? Adrian Farrel is the document shepherd. He has personally reviewed the I-D and believes it is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication. > (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members > and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have > any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that > have been performed? Long list of authors/contributors/acknowledgees. This document has been reviewed by the CCAMP working group and received some comments at IETF meetings and on the mailing list. In addition, the I-D received thorough review on liaison from Question 14 of Study Group 15 of the ITU-T. These reviews have been sufficiently deep and broad. > (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document > needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, > e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with > AAA, internationalization or XML? No concerns. > (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or > issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director > and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he > or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or > has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any > event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated > that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those > concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document > been filed? If so, please include a reference to the > disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on > this issue. The document is sound. > (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it > represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with > others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and > agree with it? There were no problems with consensus for this document. > (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme > discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in > separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It > should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is > entered into the ID Tracker.) No threats. No discontent. > (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the > document satisfies all ID nits? (See > http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and > http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are > not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document > met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB > Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? All checks made. > (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and > informative? Are there normative references to documents that > are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear > state? If such normative references exist, what is the > strategy for their completion? Are there normative references > that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If > so, list these downward references to support the Area > Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. References split. No downrefs. > (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA > consideration section exists and is consistent with the body > of the document? If the document specifies protocol > extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA > registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If > the document creates a new registry, does it define the > proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation > procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a > reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. If the > document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd > conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG > can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? This is an Informational I-D. A null IANA section is present. > (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the > document that are written in a formal language, such as XML > code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in > an automated checker? No such sections. > (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document > Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document > Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the > "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval > announcement contains the following sections: > > Technical Summary > Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract > and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be > an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract > or introduction. This document provides an evaluation of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) protocols and mechanisms against the requirements for Multi-Layer Networks (MLN) and Multi-Region Networks (MRN). In addition, this document identifies areas where additional protocol extensions or procedures are needed to satisfy these requirements, and provides guidelines for potential extensions. > Working Group Summary > Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For > example, was there controversy about particular points or > were there decisions where the consensus was particularly > rough? Nothing of note. > Document Quality > Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a > significant number of vendors indicated their plan to > implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that > merit special mention as having done a thorough review, > e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a > conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If > there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, > what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type > review, on what date was the request posted? This is an Informational I-D with no protocol specifications. Expert review of multi-layer network architecture was received from the ITU-T. From plisten@qcirep.com Mon Dec 17 17:30:00 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4OTI-0001gz-4V for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:30:00 -0500 Received: from [83.168.75.9] (helo=75-9.espol.com.pl) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4OT9-0003LX-6M for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:29:59 -0500 Received: from wielgoszk700i ([161.2.178.150]) by 94ba853qcirep.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with SMTP id 4836170B31D3 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 23:29:53 +0100 Message-ID: <001201c84104$b9b2b330$00fdef3c@wielgoszk700i> From: Sheryl To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org Subject: nsociety Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 23:29:53 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000F_01C84104.B9B2B330" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.3000 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1081 X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: a7d6aff76b15f3f56fcb94490e1052e4 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C84104.B9B2B330 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable problems. This will enable the Clinton administration to view designer is an architect than probably a building plan. There Convenience and efficiency complement each other, and together ------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C84104.B9B2B330 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

telecommunication to trivialise important issues, the soap opera

Are you wanting a bi/gg er pe \nis?

As seen on TV

Ov \er 718,000 Men aro /und the world are already sat \isfied
Gain 4+ Inc /hes In Len /gth
Inc \rease Your Pe /nis Wid /th (Gir \th) By u/p-to 21%
100% Safe To Take, With NO Side Effe /cts
No Pumps! No Surgery! No Exercises!

less it'll be a personal liesure activity ,but when I look
------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C84104.B9B2B330-- From hassled@arrietaseguros.com Mon Dec 17 22:42:11 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4TLP-0000JU-Fy for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:42:11 -0500 Received: from c-24-60-220-81.hsd1.ma.comcast.net ([24.60.220.81] helo=uiiqhi) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4TLP-0002OY-2n for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:42:11 -0500 Message-ID: <000a01c84126$47d89c80$0100007f@dhkjq> From: "Tran Palmer" To: Subject: Christmas greetings Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:42:39 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 12.0.4210 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-Spam-Score: 3.9 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 856eb5f76e7a34990d1d457d8e8e5b7f acronis true image enterprise server 9.1.3666 - 79 macrovision installshield premier edition 2008 - 199 discreet 3d studio max 6.0 with character studio - 129 autodesk 3ds max 9.0 - 149 alias motionbuilder 6.0 - 49 autodesk autocad 2008 - 129 corel wordperfect office x3 standard - 49 media tools professional 5 - 39 intuit quicken home and business 2008 - 39 grand theft auto: san andreas - 29 microsoft vista ultimate - 89 discreet combustion 4.0 for windows - 69 autodesk autocad 2008 - 129 mcafee desktop firewall 8.0.493 - 39 graphisoft archicad 9.0 r1 international - 69 adobe after effects cs3 - 69 type cheapxp4pc . com in Internet Exp!orer From ArkadiuszChristenson@topturns.com Tue Dec 18 04:13:58 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4YWU-0003sf-J9 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 04:13:58 -0500 Received: from [213.178.241.140] (helo=proxy2.aloola.sy) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4YWS-0003Gu-8f for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 04:13:58 -0500 Received: from interface01 ([182.114.112.78] helo=interface01) by proxy3.aloola.sy ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1Gekfd-000FUC-YB for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 11:23:19 +0200 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 11:22:47 +0200 From: "Arkadiusz Christenson" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org Subject: sutibuce Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 4.5 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 30ac594df0e66ffa5a93eb4c48bcb014 Sick of your girl, whining about your short dick? Shut her mouth, by
proving that your dick is a MONSTER. Only with this medicine you'll
achieve your goal. http://www.comfortpharm.com/
From Salibaobxk@mainoptical.com Tue Dec 18 07:08:25 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4bFJ-0002Ee-GC for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 07:08:25 -0500 Received: from [88.245.71.239] (helo=[88.245.71.239]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4bFI-0007Xw-HF for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 07:08:25 -0500 Received: by 10.166.206.31 with SMTP id FgYesUPzuKvHV; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:08:32 +0200 (GMT) Received: by 192.168.139.3 with SMTP id cDBXMaNzOuRwAH.4631528674857; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:08:30 +0200 (GMT) Message-ID: <000b01c8416e$b2342930$ef47f558@BLGSAYAR> From: "Bert Saliba" To: Subject: htecifir Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:08:27 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0006_01C8417F.75BCF930" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Spam-Score: 2.1 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464 ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C8417F.75BCF930 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-9" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Good night ccamp-archive hardship with your intimate relations? http://behindthough.com Bert Saliba ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C8417F.75BCF930 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-9" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Good night ccamp-archive
hardship with your intimate = relations?
http://behindthough.com
Bert Saliba
------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C8417F.75BCF930-- From Kayer@william-moody.com Tue Dec 18 17:18:04 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4klI-0001gX-SG for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 17:18:04 -0500 Received: from [221.134.249.89] (helo=221-134-250-45.sify.net) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4klI-00017z-5X for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 17:18:04 -0500 Received: from adilnore ([133.163.166.116] helo=adilnore) by 221-134-250-45.sify.net ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1Oajfx-000CQE-eU for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 19 Oct 2007 03:49:04 +05-30 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 03:48:33 +05-30 To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org From: "stephane Kayer" Subject: kamatino Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 4.2 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 8ac499381112328dd60aea5b1ff596ea Hi there ccamp-archive Add up more joy to your holiday nights http://staystring.com stephane Kayer From MadeleineintensiveShipman@coverpages.org Tue Dec 18 17:51:27 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4lHb-0002QW-0x; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 17:51:27 -0500 Received: from [189.24.194.130] (helo=maquina07) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4lHZ-0002IK-Oa; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 17:51:26 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host83008784.coverpages.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id kZ0tN0cH24.985458.Ol9.32P.1847115037953 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 20:51:04 +0300 Message-ID: <3624d01c841c8$8374e580$02fea8c0@maquina07> From: "Erna Ladd" To: Cc: , =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Viagra would=20 help you to make better sex more often and to bring unimaginable = plesure=20 to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for = action in=20 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking = this=20 medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Viagra gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_36249_01C841C8.8374E580-- From ablove@blackett.com Tue Dec 18 18:38:12 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4m0q-00016E-3H; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 18:38:12 -0500 Received: from dfb125.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl ([83.23.131.125]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4m0p-0003Lp-FH; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 18:38:11 -0500 Received: from d ([64.195.135.171] helo=d) by 7d831753blackett.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id 1423402863D9D5 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 00:38:11 +0100 Message-ID: <001201c841d7$6efabf80$06ab0de4@d> From: grown To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org Subject: As rapid Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 00:38:11 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000F_01C841D7.6EFABF80" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2962 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.1158 X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-Scan-Signature: a7d6aff76b15f3f56fcb94490e1052e4 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C841D7.6EFABF80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable it's more trouble than it's worth. I have been told, however, lives. A technology this pervasive must surely be adopted by the required, yet curriculums are now being augmented with courses ------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C841D7.6EFABF80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

lighting. A lesser known physical problem is known as repetitive

Are you wanting a bi/gg er pe \nis?

As seen on TV

Ov \er 762,000 Men aro /und the world are already sat \isfied
Gain 2+ Inc /hes In Len /gth
Inc \rease Your Pe /nis Wid /th (Gir \th) By u/p-to 27%
100% Safe To Take, With NO Side Effe /cts
No Pumps! No Surgery! No Exercises!

purchase it by conventional means, and receive it where it was
------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C841D7.6EFABF80-- From StacygraveyardRichard@repec.org Tue Dec 18 22:34:50 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4phq-0003pS-T5; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 22:34:50 -0500 Received: from static-adsl201-232-111-113.epm.net.co ([201.232.111.113] helo=pc1) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4phq-00087s-EG; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 22:34:50 -0500 Received: from politic by repec.org with SMTP id CvMd1QQZz3 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 22:34:44 +0500 From: "Micah Burnett" To: Subject: Come find out. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 2.1 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 7bac9cb154eb5790ae3b2913587a40de Travel no further than your screen and get your free $999 Get to know your new casino home! Come see what it means to be a VIP. When YOU WIN, we win! http://eurocasinoac.com/ From dymono@adnc.net Wed Dec 19 01:23:04 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4sKe-0004in-Et for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 01:23:04 -0500 Received: from cm177041.red91-117.mundo-r.com ([91.117.177.41] helo=sncv96400006.mundo-R.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4sKc-0003tr-2N for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 01:23:04 -0500 Received: from sncv96400006 ([84.39.146.224] helo=sncv96400006) by 29b1755badnc.net (8.12.0/8.12.0) with SMTP id k9VJIMOV461756 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 07:23:04 +0100 Message-ID: <001601c8420f$feba1610$06a81eb4@sncv96400006> From: Buford X. Dejesus To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org Subject: at computer Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 07:23:04 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0013_01C8420F.FEBA1610" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2462.2869 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2462.0000 X-Spam-Score: 0.4 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9ed51c9d1356100bce94f1ae4ec616a9 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C8420F.FEBA1610 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable of political "entertainment" fireworks to focus attention away constant subject in magazines. With all the attention one would a fascist government will experience greater control and order by ------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C8420F.FEBA1610 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

my own home, with plans ready to hand to the builders. These are

Are you wanting a bi/gg er pe \nis?

As seen on TV

Ov \er 756,000 Men aro /und the world are already sat \isfied
Gain 2+ Inc /hes In Len /gth
Inc \rease Your Pe /nis Wid /th (Gir \th) By u/p-to 22%
100% Safe To Take, With NO Side Effe /cts
No Pumps! No Surgery! No Exercises!

bit of the laser printer, I can see that in the near future, the
= ------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C8420F.FEBA1610-- From xlf@blatteisrealty.com Wed Dec 19 03:52:41 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4ufR-0001IM-RR; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 03:52:41 -0500 Received: from 88-106-81-25.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com ([88.106.81.25] helo=poppy) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4ufQ-00011O-IN; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 03:52:41 -0500 Received: from [88.106.81.25] by blatteisrealty.com.pri-mx.smtproutes.com; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 08:52:33 +0000 From: "Laverne Leslie" To: Subject: Re: Perfume Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 08:52:33 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1250" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353 Thread-Index: Aca6Q8JJN758X9NEL0NO0L3B180479== X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Message-ID: <01c8421c$7e90de80$19516a58@xlf> X-Spam-Score: 3.3 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 8ac499381112328dd60aea5b1ff596ea Your partner will thank you for looking at our product http://www.anythingwilldoo.com recommendations , which it is so often misunderstood, about creating "super children" contribute to In my investigation applications. You places to play are scarce, the report says. From NaomistructuralCorrea@wolf-howl.com Wed Dec 19 04:52:29 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4vbJ-00058w-O3; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 04:52:29 -0500 Received: from [81.215.155.128] (helo=ab9e81a37ccf94) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4vbI-0002iH-Kw; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 04:52:29 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host50573366.wolf-howl.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id bsL4TWGm54.097341.R7u.lNK.8509636716315 for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:52:18 -0200 Message-ID: From: "Billie Stroud" To: Cc: , =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Viagra would=20 help you to make better sex more often and to bring unimaginable = plesure=20 to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for = action in=20 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking = this=20 medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Viagra gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_B6AA_01C84224.DB7D7FB0-- From Vimal@hawthorn.com Wed Dec 19 06:41:19 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4xId-0000Fx-4x for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 06:41:19 -0500 Received: from [151.53.19.37] (helo=[151.53.19.37]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4xIc-0005BD-9i for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 06:41:19 -0500 Received: by 10.176.161.21 with SMTP id DYTJsxgFkINDA; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 12:41:59 +0100 (GMT) Received: by 192.168.200.219 with SMTP id xjwSSmxQaxeNoW.0978410448841; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 12:41:57 +0100 (GMT) Message-ID: <000a01c84234$2707e2e0$25133597@PRESIDE> From: "Vimal sloyer" To: Subject: leddimno Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 12:41:54 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0006_01C8423C.88CC4AE0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Spam-Score: 2.1 (++) X-Scan-Signature: e5ba305d0e64821bf3d8bc5d3bb07228 ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C8423C.88CC4AE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable regards ccamp-archive problems caused by ya tiny PE? http://helpsong.com Vimal sloyer ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C8423C.88CC4AE0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
regards ccamp-archive
problems caused by ya tiny PE?
http://helpsong.com
Vimal sloyer
------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C8423C.88CC4AE0-- From KathrinepolymorphicNickerson@chosendance.com Wed Dec 19 09:38:33 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5049-0008GR-SZ; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:38:33 -0500 Received: from [190.2.53.5] (helo=talaverajaque) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5048-0003TC-QS; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:38:33 -0500 Received: from fallen by chosendance.com with SMTP id 0Qznk1stJO for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:38:20 +0300 From: "Charmaine Burr" To: Subject: Our casino is for everyone who likes to win! Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 2.1 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 7bac9cb154eb5790ae3b2913587a40de Our casino is for you and everyone else who likes to win! When YOU WIN, we win! Get $999 you download our casino. Play your favorite games and get $999 welcome bonus. http://eurocasinoac.com/ From salinas@oberwinter.de Wed Dec 19 10:53:19 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J51EV-0004MV-8l for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 10:53:19 -0500 Received: from [142.33.78.79] (helo=vance008.net.gov.bc.ca) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J51EU-0005L9-M1 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 10:53:18 -0500 Received: by 10.79.167.126 with SMTP id nGvjMQrOMgFmL; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 07:53:23 -0800 (GMT) Received: by 192.168.107.26 with SMTP id iPviXVANYalWft.5081950920372; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 07:53:21 -0800 (GMT) Message-ID: <000c01c84257$45d45370$0cba168e@CSFPORDIRPEDAG> From: "hong salinas" To: Subject: ruse`ren Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 07:53:18 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0006_01C84214.37B11370" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Spam-Score: 2.1 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464 ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C84214.37B11370 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Yo yo yo ccamp-archive Olny 6 days special price for you dear customer http://warmadd.com hong salinas ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C84214.37B11370 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Yo yo yo ccamp-archive
Olny 6 days special price for you dear=20 customer
http://warmadd.com
hong salinas
------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C84214.37B11370-- From akstcagidimnsdgs@agidi.it Wed Dec 19 11:23:44 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J51hv-0005c2-W2; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:23:44 -0500 Received: from hmmt143148.catv.ppp.infoweb.ne.jp ([121.94.122.148] helo=FM-08425329B937) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J51hu-0006PA-He; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:23:43 -0500 Received: from [121.94.122.148] by mail.agidi.it; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 01:29:51 +0900 From: "Simone Maloney" To: Subject: Reply asap Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 01:29:51 +0900 Message-ID: <01c842a7$d14c0150$947a5e79@akstcagidimnsdgs> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1437 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7aefe408d50e9c7c47615841cb314bed hey I read your profile on-line a few minutes ago and you seem intresting email me at Nik@GloryWayChurchx.info and I will reply with a Picture and Info about me right away. Talk to you soon From Julianogb@shimizu-ya.net Wed Dec 19 15:16:02 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J55Kk-0002GV-OI for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 15:16:02 -0500 Received: from [24.181.115.152] (helo=unknown.al.charter.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J55Kj-0004DW-Lb for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 15:16:01 -0500 Received: from EA5E71A6DE4A4D9 by shimizu-ya.net with ASMTP id 391F05C7 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:16:46 -0500 Received: from EA5E71A6DE4A4D9 ([190.104.2.3]) by shimizu-ya.net with ESMTP id 1C31EB4516A7 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:16:46 -0500 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:16:08 -0500 To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org From: "Sivarami Julian" Subject: edahswey Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 2.1 (++) X-Scan-Signature: bb8eae9af85e4fcfe76f325e38493bf4 Turn your cock into da bomb! It'll be so big, you could ski down it. Medicine and instructions are attached. http://www.livemgmts.com/ From TraceyaniseikonicAguirre@martindale.com Wed Dec 19 17:56:55 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J57qR-0001rq-Eq; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 17:56:55 -0500 Received: from pool-96-232-243-94.nycmny.east.verizon.net ([96.232.243.94] helo=userb0de2bcfeb.myhome.westell.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J57qR-0000iX-5k; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 17:56:55 -0500 Received: from carboloy by martindale.com with SMTP id LM7mxGmiGO for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 17:56:50 +0500 From: "Johnie Bernard" To: Cc: , Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J59Yo-0000P9-17; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 19:46:50 -0500 Received: from [88.134.211.95] (helo=privatmann) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J59Ym-0003EB-Sd; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 19:46:49 -0500 Received: from [88.134.211.95] by mail.horizontele.com; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 01:45:59 +0100 From: "Betsy Hansen" To: Subject: We have everything your looking for Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 01:45:59 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353 Thread-Index: Aca6QCR33B1UAMSR4PL3LFG1Q9JW39== X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1478 Message-ID: <01c842aa$1215ef00$5fd38658@atisch> X-Spam-Score: 2.1 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 7aefe408d50e9c7c47615841cb314bed Great Gift ideas online No need to drive anywhere and wait in long lines http://razekricibra.com From mvintage@freemanco.com Thu Dec 20 01:11:03 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5EcY-0008I0-Oa for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 01:11:02 -0500 Received: from p4122-ipad414marunouchi.tokyo.ocn.ne.jp ([60.39.115.122]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5EcX-0001DP-Vp for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 01:11:02 -0500 Received: (qmail 782 invoked from network); Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:11:01 +0900 Received: from unknown (HELO FM7833665) (mvintage@freemanco.com@96.12.195.37) by 7a73273cfreemanco.com with SMTP; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:11:01 +0900 Message-ID: <001501c8431a$8837d430$0241f0bc@FM7833665> From: Reed L. Dahl To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org Subject: moperate Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:11:01 +0900 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0012_01C8431A.8837D430" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.3790.1409 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.2963 X-Spam-Score: 0.5 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 21c69d3cfc2dd19218717dbe1d974352 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0012_01C8431A.8837D430 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1251" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable and it also had a misleading name that made people sound clever. Merchandis= ing stores will be the size of a information center I' m sure this sense of isolation is not my very own domain, = ------=_NextPart_000_0012_01C8431A.8837D430 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1251" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

thoughts right here are culturally specific to some one who

Are you wanting a bi/gg er pe \nis?

As seen on TV

Ov \er 780,000 Men aro /und the world are already sat \isfied
Gain 4+ Inc /hes In Len /gth
Inc \rease Your Pe /nis Wid /th (Gir \th) By u/p-to 24%
100% Safe To Take, With NO Side Effe /cts
No Pumps! No Surgery! No Exercises!

computer networks such as MediaMoo or other MUDs facilitating
------=_NextPart_000_0012_01C8431A.8837D430-- From ebelow@leemunder.com Thu Dec 20 01:31:56 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5Ewm-0003Wc-4D for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 01:31:56 -0500 Received: from ppp-58.10.152.4.revip2.asianet.co.th ([58.10.152.4]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5Ewk-0001WO-9Z for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 01:31:55 -0500 Received: (qmail 4304 invoked from network); Thu, 20 Dec 2007 13:38:57 +0700 Received: from unknown (HELO Sale1) (ebelow@leemunder.com@158.74.70.162) by 4980a3aleemunder.com with SMTP; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 13:38:57 +0700 Message-ID: <000f01c8430d$abd04c90$0045bbc4@Sale1> From: Ada Adams To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org Subject: to dealing Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 13:38:57 +0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000C_01C8430D.ABD04C90" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.2962 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.2869 X-Spam-Score: 3.3 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 21c69d3cfc2dd19218717dbe1d974352 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C8430D.ABD04C90 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable fascinating progression. Since I make art, I was curious as to and it also = had a misleading name that made people sound clever. artist has used to create his/her work, just like a camera, or a ------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C8430D.ABD04C90 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

exploring one for the last eight weeks. It is the dimension of

Are you wanting a bi/gg er pe \nis?

As seen on TV

Ov \er 745,000 Men aro /und the world are already sat \isfied
Gain 4+ Inc /hes In Len /gth
Inc \rease Your Pe /nis Wid /th (Gir \th) By u/p-to 20%
100% Safe To Take, With NO Side Effe /cts
No Pumps! No Surgery! No Exercises!

painter may not believe the brush tool of the paint program could ------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C8430D.ABD04C90-- From akstcafssocietymnsdgs@afssociety.org Thu Dec 20 06:40:51 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5Jli-00026a-Nt; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 06:40:50 -0500 Received: from [121.20.5.211] (helo=billgates) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5Jlh-0000Au-9E; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 06:40:50 -0500 Received: from [121.20.5.211] by mx.afssociety.org; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 19:47:02 +0800 Message-ID: <01c84341$17316ef0$d3051479@akstcafssocietymnsdgs> From: "Emmett Mayfield" To: Subject: Mayfield Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 19:47:02 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1250" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 X-Spam-Score: 2.7 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 30ac594df0e66ffa5a93eb4c48bcb014 We hold all kinds of amazing quality med`s on very cheap price. http://louellayurickdm.googlepages.com Right Here Thanks, DR. Mayfield Emmett From CaryhorsewomenCortez@pesn.com Thu Dec 20 07:43:09 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5Kk1-0003M6-19; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 07:43:09 -0500 Received: from 200-126-82-142.bk6-dsl.surnet.cl ([200.126.82.142] helo=pc95df49473eca.belkin) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5Kk0-0001jS-ER; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 07:43:08 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Marlon Clarke" To: Cc: , =20
Presenting the = energy Co to be in=20 for rest 2007
ENERBRITE=20 TECHNOLOGI
Symbol : E T G=20 U

Energy sector is hot right = now, and=20 everyone wants in

About the Co
We have two strategic=20 objectives:

~ to become a market = leader in=20 developing and marketing innovative and intelligent energy saving = solutions=20 that achieve significant savings in the cost of energy and substantial=20 improvements in energy conservation to the benefit of both consumers and = the=20 environment

~ to be an integrator of = smart=20 automated lifestyle systems that control the interior environment = (climate,=20 entertainment, lighting, security) of residential and professional=20 spaces

Ride this winner for = easy double=20 or triple bagger

------=_NextPart_000_BF55_01C84305.DDADEE00-- From StefanmouseSpears@itsecurity.com Thu Dec 20 09:40:16 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5MZM-0004aI-Gi; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 09:40:16 -0500 Received: from host7-196-dynamic.59-82-r.retail.telecomitalia.it ([82.59.196.7] helo=la222ed46a371c.homenet.telecomitalia.it) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5MZL-00076o-AK; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 09:40:15 -0500 Message-ID: <7d5701c84316$3af47560$1601a8c0@la222ed46a371c> From: "Weldon Pugh" To: , =20
Presenting the = energy Co to be in=20 for rest 2007
ENERBRITE=20 TECHNOLOGI
Symbol : E T G=20 U

Energy sector is hot right = now, and=20 everyone wants in

About the Co
We have two strategic=20 objectives:

~ to become a market = leader in=20 developing and marketing innovative and intelligent energy saving = solutions=20 that achieve significant savings in the cost of energy and substantial=20 improvements in energy conservation to the benefit of both consumers and = the=20 environment

~ to be an integrator of = smart=20 automated lifestyle systems that control the interior environment = (climate,=20 entertainment, lighting, security) of residential and professional=20 spaces

Ride this winner for = easy double=20 or triple bagger

------=_NextPart_000_7D53_01C84316.3AF47560-- From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Thu Dec 20 10:52:19 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5Nh5-0002ox-UB for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 10:52:19 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5Nh0-0004DY-GB for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 10:52:19 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J5NV2-0001ot-Gv for ccamp-data@psg.com; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:39:52 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE, RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [66.226.64.2] (helo=pro.abac.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J5NUR-0001mN-CW for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:39:37 +0000 Received: from [192.168.0.131] (c-71-202-41-42.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [71.202.41.42]) (authenticated bits=0) by pro.abac.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id lBKFd7MM014461 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 07:39:11 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gregb@grotto-networking.com) Message-ID: <476A8C9A.6010301@grotto-networking.com> Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 07:39:06 -0800 From: Greg Bernstein User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ccamp Subject: Re: On Labels for Wavelength Switched Optical Networks... References: <4762AC75.3090304@grotto-networking.com> In-Reply-To: <4762AC75.3090304@grotto-networking.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040304080106020609050803" Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: a4e5f67c5e230eddf754446d1a2201a4 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------040304080106020609050803 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi folks I've gotten a couple of questions on my note, so I wanted to clarify. The essence of the discussion below is to show that no significantly simpler method exists to specify a global label for lambdas (in either frequency or wavelength) and that the label of [Otani] has the advantage of being based on a widely accepted and used standard. I do not think that we need to modify the label of [Otani] in any significant way, though I have discussed with the authors a slight "tweak" to the CWDM format to more closely mirror the DWDM format. Regards Greg B. Greg Bernstein wrote: > > Hi folks, at the Vancouver meeting the lambda label format of Otani, > et. al. draft-otani-ccamp-gmpls-lambda-labels-01.txt > > [Otani] was presented for a second time and a few new issues seemed to > arise. I'm writing this note to see if we can resolve these on the > list so this work can move forward, since the label format is > valuable, in general, to the control of wavelength switched optical > networks (WSON). > > First, a general 32 bit lambda label has been defined in RFC3471. > This previous label does not directly relate to either the wavelength > or frequency of the light used in a lambda LSP in a standardized way > (folks can use the 32 bits as they see fit). > To come up with a completely general "lambda label" one could/should > define both a (i) wavelength label specified in meters and (ii) a > frequency label specified in Hertz (Hz). These could be specified > either with a 32 bit IEEE floating point number or via a suitable 32 > bit integer by suitably adjusting the base units. We could represent > the frequency via a 32 bit integer in MHz, then a 193.1THz light > source could be characterized by the integer 193,100,000. Similarly we > could represent the wavelength label via a 32 bit integer in pico > meters (10-12 meters), then a 1550nm wavelength could be characterized > by the integer 1,550,000. > > Now any of the previous formats could be used with the 32 bit lambda > label already defined. The problem here is to pick a format for > interoperability and compatibility with potentially common wavelength > switched control operations. > Issues with the previously mentioned formats: > > (a) While floating point numbers provide great flexibility, as a > label they have issues when it comes to comparison operations. > > (b) An integer format with a suitably scaled exponent is relatively > simple and just leaves the choice of "exponent" to be decided. > > (c) Neither format contains any "context" information about the WDM > system in general. > > The format proposed in [Otani]. avoids the above three issues and > enhances common control plane operations as follows: > > (a) The format is integer based, hence avoids issues with floating > point comparisons. > > (b) The format is based on the widely recognized ITU-T standard > grids (ITU-T G.694.1 and .2) and fosters interoperability more than > potentially any other choice. > > (c) The ITU-T grids come in various widths and hence have an > inherent growth path. > > (d) The ITU-T grids come in both frequency (G.694.1) and wavelength > (G.694.2) flavored versions an both are incorporated in the [Otani] > label format. > > (e) The format includes information on the grid spacing which is > important WDM context information useful in many label selection > processes. For example a tunable laser associated with a 50GHz > spacing WDM system could specify acceptable label range via the > inclusive range label set mechanism. Note that only those frequencies > (labels) that fall on the grid are supported and not intermediate > frequencies. > > > At the CCAMP WG meeting in Vancouver it was pointed out (by Lou > Berger) that since a lambda label already exists and that existing > implementations may make use of it that the proposed label of [Otani] > would be better off referred to as a "G.694 label". With such a change > I think that this label format (and accompanying draft) should move > forward as a working group document. > > Comments, suggestions, issues? > > Regards > > Greg B. > > -- > =================================================== > Dr Greg Bernstein, Grotto Networking (510) 573-2237 > > -- =================================================== Dr Greg Bernstein, Grotto Networking (510) 573-2237 --------------040304080106020609050803 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi folks I've gotten a couple of questions on my note, so I wanted to clarify. The essence of the discussion below is to show that  no significantly simpler method exists to specify a global label for lambdas (in either frequency or wavelength) and that the label of [Otani] has the advantage of being based on a widely accepted and used standard.  I do not think that we need to modify the label of [Otani] in any significant way, though I have discussed with the authors a slight "tweak" to the CWDM format to more closely mirror the DWDM format.

Regards

Greg B.

Greg Bernstein wrote:

Hi folks, at the Vancouver meeting the lambda label format of Otani, et. al. draft-otani-ccamp-gmpls-lambda-labels-01.txt [Otani] was presented for a second time and a few new issues seemed to arise. I'm writing this note to see if we can resolve these on the list so this work can move forward, since the label format is valuable, in general, to the control of wavelength switched optical networks (WSON).

First, a general 32 bit lambda label has been defined in RFC3471.  This previous label does not directly relate to either the wavelength or frequency of the light used in a lambda LSP in a standardized way (folks can use the 32 bits as they see fit).
To come up with a completely general "lambda label" one could/should define both a (i) wavelength label specified in meters and (ii) a frequency label specified in Hertz (Hz).  These could be specified either with a 32 bit IEEE floating point number or via a suitable 32 bit integer by suitably adjusting the base units.  We could represent the frequency via a 32 bit integer in MHz, then a 193.1THz light source could be characterized by the integer 193,100,000. Similarly we could represent the wavelength label via a 32 bit integer in pico meters (10-12 meters), then a 1550nm wavelength could be characterized by the integer 1,550,000.

 Now any of the previous formats could be used with the 32 bit lambda label already defined.  The problem here is to pick a format for interoperability and compatibility with potentially common wavelength switched control operations.
Issues with the previously mentioned formats:

(a)    While floating point numbers provide great flexibility, as a label they have issues when it comes to comparison operations. 

(b)   An integer format with a suitably scaled exponent is relatively simple and just leaves the choice of “exponent” to be decided.

(c)    Neither format contains any “context” information about the WDM system in general.

The format proposed in [Otani]. avoids the above three issues and enhances common control plane operations as follows:

(a)    The format is integer based, hence avoids issues with floating point comparisons.

(b)   The format is based on the widely recognized ITU-T standard grids (ITU-T G.694.1 and .2) and fosters interoperability more than potentially any other choice. 

(c)    The ITU-T grids come in various widths and hence have an inherent growth path.

(d)   The ITU-T grids come in both frequency (G.694.1) and wavelength (G.694.2) flavored versions an both are incorporated in the [Otani] label format.

(e)    The format includes information on the grid spacing which is important WDM context information useful in many label selection processes.  For example a tunable laser associated with a 50GHz spacing WDM system could specify acceptable label range via the inclusive range label set mechanism.  Note that only those frequencies (labels) that fall on the grid are supported and not intermediate frequencies.

 
At the CCAMP WG meeting in Vancouver it was pointed out (by Lou Berger) that since a lambda label already exists and that existing implementations may make use of it that the proposed label of [Otani] would be better off referred to as a “G.694 label”. With such a change I think that this label format (and accompanying draft) should move forward as a working group document.

Comments, suggestions, issues?

Regards

Greg B.

-- 
===================================================
Dr Greg Bernstein, Grotto Networking (510) 573-2237

  

-- 
===================================================
Dr Greg Bernstein, Grotto Networking (510) 573-2237
--------------040304080106020609050803-- From MacbrainchildDowns@strongbadgecase.com Thu Dec 20 11:44:26 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5OVW-0007I1-E0; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 11:44:26 -0500 Received: from [41.249.51.83] (helo=unicorni06aa2a) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5OVV-0001qf-IC; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 11:44:26 -0500 Message-ID: <254b01c84327$91dca080$0c02a8c0@unicorni06aa2a> From: "Horacio Bird" To: Cc: , =20
Presenting the = energy Co to be in=20 for rest 2007
ENERBRITE=20 TECHNOLOGI
Symbol : E T G=20 U

Energy sector is hot right = now, and=20 everyone wants in

About the Co
We have two strategic=20 objectives:

~ to become a market = leader in=20 developing and marketing innovative and intelligent energy saving = solutions=20 that achieve significant savings in the cost of energy and substantial=20 improvements in energy conservation to the benefit of both consumers and = the=20 environment

~ to be an integrator of = smart=20 automated lifestyle systems that control the interior environment = (climate,=20 entertainment, lighting, security) of residential and professional=20 spaces

Ride this winner for = easy double=20 or triple bagger

------=_NextPart_000_2547_01C84327.91DCA080-- From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Thu Dec 20 12:48:05 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5PV7-0000yj-QW for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 12:48:05 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5PV7-0003YK-8G for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 12:48:05 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J5PGH-000BWS-I1 for ccamp-data@psg.com; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:32:45 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [66.226.64.2] (helo=pro.abac.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J5PFj-000BQh-Nr for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:32:30 +0000 Received: from [192.168.0.131] (c-71-202-41-42.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [71.202.41.42]) (authenticated bits=0) by pro.abac.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id lBKHW2O1082064 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 20 Dec 2007 09:32:03 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gregb@grotto-networking.com) Message-ID: <476AA711.3090905@grotto-networking.com> Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 09:32:01 -0800 From: Greg Bernstein User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adrian Farrel CC: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: Liaison received from ITU-T on T-MPLS ring protection References: <030501c840c9$3272fd20$9200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> In-Reply-To: <030501c840c9$3272fd20$9200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 538aad3a3c4f01d8b6a6477ca4248793 Hi all, it seems to me there maybe some implications for GMPLS based on previous experience with "software based 4F-BLSRs", that is rings that are setup on portions of a mesh network to provide fast redundant protection using SDH like ring switching mechanisms. These types of rings which are applicable to a number of layers (optical, SDH, whatever) have traditionally had interoperability problems across vendors. This has typically involved how to share the "ring map" information (see section 17.1 of the liaison attachment). In addition "nodes" need information on connections added and dropped so they can prevent mis-connection (the "squelching" process). Obviously one way to keep track of a ring map is to "mark" a link as belonging to a particular ring and distribute this info via GMPLS routing. Regards Greg B. Adrian Farrel wrote: > Hi, > > We received a liaison from the ITU-T that reads as follows... > > SG15 Q9 has nearly completed its work on a recommendation for > T-MPLS Ring Protection - G.8132. It is targeted to consent this > new recommendation in the next SG15 plenary meeting scheduled > for Feb., 2008. > > We have attached the latest draft for your information and > comments. > > We are requested to comment by 11th February 2008. > > At first glance, this work appears to concentrate on the data plane > only and so is not within our scope. The MPLS working group was also > copied and can handle any issues concerning the MPLS data plane. > > As always, you can see all incoming and outgoing communications for > CCAMP at www.olddog.co.uk/ccamp.htm > > Thanks, > Adrian > > > -- =================================================== Dr Greg Bernstein, Grotto Networking (510) 573-2237 From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Thu Dec 20 14:14:57 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5QrB-000459-CA for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 14:14:57 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5Qr8-00086S-Rt for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 14:14:57 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J5Qer-000Muh-E4 for ccamp-data@psg.com; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 19:02:13 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE, RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [64.233.182.188] (helo=nf-out-0910.google.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J5Qdu-000MoA-9z for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 19:01:41 +0000 Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id d21so1859780nfb.11 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 11:01:12 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references:x-google-sender-auth; bh=hCYRux0Pbg5pmGlmA1E/Ld8rCGxCQ7gP+GiMTTOSiBI=; b=NiGXwZOL+0syC1GVFaL/NtV+5711EUwqTSe32kEPPoQfYjVLQEa7GemMn7nB6JwdCiv0ccR9i2VkL825q0jya0Mo0rlZuJlu/ljwh/0QFFlL155e5qDZ4c6HvlTi8HXInY7vKOrA0uPrywYV3Ea8czj+u1c57zi4gdskabXQwMk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=GInkc4+fCFGwsLLS+B5SZ0ffbMin9u3pLobwSc07rKyc7Q51pmYPxY/RCuH2PxK+eJHJFmk8bFErHrCDktHx2d9BSy0b4C8fK+FEwVwmePoooJ59PYhCnBezX8g7SudWzV04WjRKsopjergHG0X8GxUm/vkDNBOpsD1C7e98VOA= Received: by 10.78.150.7 with SMTP id x7mr584727hud.48.1198176832018; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 10:53:52 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.78.172.7 with HTTP; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 10:53:51 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 10:53:51 -0800 From: "Richard Rabbat" To: "Greg Bernstein" Subject: Re: On Labels for Wavelength Switched Optical Networks... Cc: ccamp In-Reply-To: <476A8C9A.6010301@grotto-networking.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_23283_11296360.1198176832020" References: <4762AC75.3090304@grotto-networking.com> <476A8C9A.6010301@grotto-networking.com> X-Google-Sender-Auth: c62f1a451c3febea Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: f8184d7d4d1b986353eb58ea3e887935 ------=_Part_23283_11296360.1198176832020 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline hey Greg, When you have a minute, can you send out the proposal for the slight tweak? I put these together to make things simpler and they're perfect :) Richard. On Dec 20, 2007 7:39 AM, Greg Bernstein wrote: > Hi folks I've gotten a couple of questions on my note, so I wanted to > clarify. The essence of the discussion below is to show that no > significantly simpler method exists to specify a global label for lambdas > (in either frequency or wavelength) and that the label of [Otani] has the > advantage of being based on a widely accepted and used standard. I do not > think that we need to modify the label of [Otani] in any significant way, > though I have discussed with the authors a slight "tweak" to the CWDM format > to more closely mirror the DWDM format. > > Regards > > Greg B. > > > Greg Bernstein wrote: > > Hi folks, at the Vancouver meeting the lambda label format of Otani, et. > al. draft-otani-ccamp-gmpls-lambda-labels-01.txt[Otani] was presented for a second time and a few new issues seemed to > arise. I'm writing this note to see if we can resolve these on the list so > this work can move forward, since the label format is valuable, in general, > to the control of wavelength switched optical networks (WSON). > > First, a general 32 bit lambda label has been defined in RFC3471. This > previous label does not directly relate to either the wavelength or > frequency of the light used in a lambda LSP in a standardized way (folks can > use the 32 bits as they see fit). > To come up with a completely general "lambda label" one could/should > define both a (i) wavelength label specified in meters and (ii) a frequency > label specified in Hertz (Hz). These could be specified either with a 32 > bit IEEE floating point number or via a suitable 32 bit integer by suitably > adjusting the base units. We could represent the frequency via a 32 bit > integer in MHz, then a 193.1THz light source could be characterized by the > integer 193,100,000. Similarly we could represent the wavelength label via a > 32 bit integer in pico meters (10-12 meters), then a 1550nm wavelength could > be characterized by the integer 1,550,000. > > Now any of the previous formats could be used with the 32 bit lambda > label already defined. The problem here is to pick a format for > interoperability and compatibility with potentially common wavelength > switched control operations. > Issues with the previously mentioned formats: > > (a) While floating point numbers provide great flexibility, as a label > they have issues when it comes to comparison operations. > > (b) An integer format with a suitably scaled exponent is relatively > simple and just leaves the choice of "exponent" to be decided. > > (c) Neither format contains any "context" information about the WDM > system in general. > > The format proposed in [Otani]. avoids the above three issues and enhances > common control plane operations as follows: > > (a) The format is integer based, hence avoids issues with floating > point comparisons. > > (b) The format is based on the widely recognized ITU-T standard grids > (ITU-T G.694.1 and .2) and fosters interoperability more than potentially > any other choice. > > (c) The ITU-T grids come in various widths and hence have an inherent > growth path. > > (d) The ITU-T grids come in both frequency (G.694.1) and wavelength ( > G.694.2) flavored versions an both are incorporated in the [Otani] label > format. > > (e) The format includes information on the grid spacing which is > important WDM context information useful in many label selection processes. > For example a tunable laser associated with a 50GHz spacing WDM system > could specify acceptable label range via the inclusive range label set > mechanism. Note that only those frequencies (labels) that fall on the > grid are supported and not intermediate frequencies. > > > At the CCAMP WG meeting in Vancouver it was pointed out (by Lou Berger) > that since a lambda label already exists and that existing implementations > may make use of it that the proposed label of [Otani] would be better off > referred to as a "G.694 label". With such a change I think that this label > format (and accompanying draft) should move forward as a working group > document. > > Comments, suggestions, issues? > > Regards > > Greg B. > > -- > =================================================== > Dr Greg Bernstein, Grotto Networking (510) 573-2237 > > > > > -- > =================================================== > Dr Greg Bernstein, Grotto Networking (510) 573-2237 > > > ------=_Part_23283_11296360.1198176832020 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline hey Greg,
When you have a minute, can you send out the proposal for the slight tweak?
I put these together to make things simpler and they're perfect :)
Richard.

On Dec 20, 2007 7:39 AM, Greg Bernstein < gregb@grotto-networking.com> wrote:
Hi folks I've gotten a couple of questions on my note, so I wanted to clarify. The essence of the discussion below is to show that  no significantly simpler method exists to specify a global label for lambdas (in either frequency or wavelength) and that the label of [Otani] has the advantage of being based on a widely accepted and used standard.  I do not think that we need to modify the label of [Otani] in any significant way, though I have discussed with the authors a slight "tweak" to the CWDM format to more closely mirror the DWDM format.

Regards

Greg B.


Greg Bernstein wrote:

Hi folks, at the Vancouver meeting the lambda label format of Otani, et. al. draft-otani-ccamp-gmpls-lambda-labels-01.txt [Otani] was presented for a second time and a few new issues seemed to arise. I'm writing this note to see if we can resolve these on the list so this work can move forward, since the label format is valuable, in general, to the control of wavelength switched optical networks (WSON).

First, a general 32 bit lambda label has been defined in RFC3471.  This previous label does not directly relate to either the wavelength or frequency of the light used in a lambda LSP in a standardized way (folks can use the 32 bits as they see fit).
To come up with a completely general "lambda label" one could/should define both a (i) wavelength label specified in meters and (ii) a frequency label specified in Hertz (Hz).  These could be specified either with a 32 bit IEEE floating point number or via a suitable 32 bit integer by suitably adjusting the base units.  We could represent the frequency via a 32 bit integer in MHz, then a 193.1THz light source could be characterized by the integer 193,100,000. Similarly we could represent the wavelength label via a 32 bit integer in pico meters (10-12 meters), then a 1550nm wavelength could be characterized by the integer 1,550,000.

 Now any of the previous formats could be used with the 32 bit lambda label already defined.  The problem here is to pick a format for interoperability and compatibility with potentially common wavelength switched control operations.
Issues with the previously mentioned formats:

(a)     While floating point numbers provide great flexibility, as a label they have issues when it comes to comparison operations. 

(b)    An integer format with a suitably scaled exponent is relatively simple and just leaves the choice of "exponent" to be decided.

(c)     Neither format contains any "context" information about the WDM system in general.

The format proposed in [Otani]. avoids the above three issues and enhances common control plane operations as follows:

(a)     The format is integer based, hence avoids issues with floating point comparisons.

(b)    The format is based on the widely recognized ITU-T standard grids (ITU-T G.694.1 and .2) and fosters interoperability more than potentially any other choice. 

(c)     The ITU-T grids come in various widths and hence have an inherent growth path.

(d)    The ITU-T grids come in both frequency (G.694.1) and wavelength (G.694.2) flavored versions an both are incorporated in the [Otani] label format.

(e)     The format includes information on the grid spacing which is important WDM context information useful in many label selection processes.  For example a tunable laser associated with a 50GHz spacing WDM system could specify acceptable label range via the inclusive range label set mechanism.  Note that only those frequencies (labels) that fall on the grid are supported and not intermediate frequencies.

 
At the CCAMP WG meeting in Vancouver it was pointed out (by Lou Berger) that since a lambda label already exists and that existing implementations may make use of it that the proposed label of [Otani] would be better off referred to as a "G.694 label". With such a change I think that this label format (and accompanying draft) should move forward as a working group document.

Comments, suggestions, issues?

Regards

Greg B.

-- 
===================================================
Dr Greg Bernstein, Grotto Networking (510) 573-2237

  

-- 
===================================================
Dr Greg Bernstein, Grotto Networking (510) 573-2237

------=_Part_23283_11296360.1198176832020-- From Gradi164@bgu.es Thu Dec 20 14:59:10 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5RXy-0004Mf-CL for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 14:59:10 -0500 Received: from [89.100.178.234] (helo=089-100-178234.ntlworld.ie) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5RXx-0006Xa-Rg for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 14:59:10 -0500 Received: from personal-as5lke ([192.113.75.124] helo=personal-as5lke) by 089-100-178234.ntlworld.ie ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1SnBlt-000HUD-UI for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 19:59:34 -0000 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 19:59:09 -0000 To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org From: "Gradi kornfeld" Subject: apostelb Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 3.5 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: bb8eae9af85e4fcfe76f325e38493bf4 Big, thick, and long penis, one simple solution! http://www.nmseosc.com/ From camilla3eugene32@nokia.com Thu Dec 20 15:22:34 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5Ruc-0006Po-7n for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:22:34 -0500 Received: from [88.245.216.105] (helo=88.245.216.105) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5Rub-000797-LT for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:22:34 -0500 Message-ID: <000501c84346$064ab5ab$c736a490@vgsbepoa> From: "darill roland" To: "Andy Pack" Subject: perfectly crafted exclusive watches rolex Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 18:35:09 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-Spam-Score: 4.4 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 2870a44b67ee17965ce5ad0177e150f4 Perfectly crafted luxury timepieces...the finest of products at the LOWEST prices!! http://serxmas.net/ From JennaariesPham@mcall.com Thu Dec 20 15:50:01 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5SLB-0001TK-7J; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:50:01 -0500 Received: from [200.106.19.65] (helo=user) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5SLA-0002Si-8c; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:50:00 -0500 Message-ID: <7b6d01c84317$9410d8e0$1401a8c0@USER> From: "Laverne Singer" To: , =20
Presenting the = energy Co to be in=20 for rest 2007
ENERBRITE=20 TECHNOLOGI
Symbol : E T G=20 U

Energy sector is hot right = now, and=20 everyone wants in

About the Co
We have two strategic=20 objectives:

~ to become a market = leader in=20 developing and marketing innovative and intelligent energy saving = solutions=20 that achieve significant savings in the cost of energy and substantial=20 improvements in energy conservation to the benefit of both consumers and = the=20 environment

~ to be an integrator of = smart=20 automated lifestyle systems that control the interior environment = (climate,=20 entertainment, lighting, security) of residential and professional=20 spaces

Ride this winner for = easy double=20 or triple bagger

------=_NextPart_000_7B69_01C84317.9410D8E0-- From JanetteambrosialDahl@washingtonpost.com Thu Dec 20 16:50:37 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5THo-0002Lt-TN; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 16:50:36 -0500 Received: from [190.42.147.41] (helo=cabina3) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5THm-0004Af-SR; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 16:50:36 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host79106620.washingtonpost.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id TvjcXcfY80.023791.LaA.XI9.4423970269315 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 16:50:08 +0500 Message-ID: <1d1001c84352$593cb870$8e01a8c0@CABINA3> From: "Lorna Joiner" To: Cc: , =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Viagra would=20 help you to make better sex more often and to bring unimaginable = plesure=20 to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for = action in=20 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking = this=20 medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Viagra gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_1D0C_01C84352.593CB870-- From RachellemegahertzMcmullen@everything2.com Thu Dec 20 17:09:04 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5TZg-0004a4-KD; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:09:04 -0500 Received: from [189.166.42.125] (helo=gerardo) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5TZg-0004hN-9f; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:09:04 -0500 Received: from hangable by everything2.com with SMTP id SroOpu9QUX for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 16:08:58 +0600 From: "Jocelyn Drummond" To: , Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5Yxs-0006at-Gt; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 22:54:24 -0500 Received: from [78.150.153.110] (helo=libyanb135ae7c) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5Yxr-00040N-RI; Thu, 20 Dec 2007 22:54:24 -0500 Received: from flu by metacritic.com with SMTP id r2la8rlenF for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 03:54:09 +0000 From: "Luther Page" To: Cc: , Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5Zzi-000255-34 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 00:00:22 -0500 Received: from [62.215.81.22] (helo=[62.215.3.42]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5Zzh-00053y-9H for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 00:00:21 -0500 Received: from hp-b7b6fe54d633 by settraining.co.uk with ASMTP id 718B3BA0 for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 08:09:10 +0300 Received: from hp-b7b6fe54d633 ([101.102.102.62]) by settraining.co.uk with ESMTP id 7DC48DD2200A for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 08:09:10 +0300 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 08:08:53 +0300 To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org From: "Kaleb Georgiev" Subject: ehcsfuak Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 2.4 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 8ac499381112328dd60aea5b1ff596ea Compliments ccamp-archive Best Weight Loss Pills - Why be ugly forever? I know how to help you lose weight. http://fieldfoot.com Kaleb Georgiev From SandydentureEdmonds@northcoastjournal.com Fri Dec 21 07:28:33 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5gzR-0005Bn-GZ; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 07:28:33 -0500 Received: from 207stb69.codetel.net.do ([66.98.19.207] helo=marlen.codetel.net.do) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5gzQ-0008V2-Sy; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 07:28:33 -0500 Message-ID: <3b7101c843cd$042fb050$2200000a@marlen> From: "Angie Richter" To: , =20
The Selloff is=20 over
HUge Volume spike = today all on an=20 UPtick
This s t o c K is = going to soar=20 in coming days

ENERBRITE = TECHNOLOGI

Symbol : E T G = U
Up a whopping 35 %=20 today

Energy sector is hot = right now,=20 and everyone wants in

------=_NextPart_000_3B6D_01C843CD.042FB050-- From hentire@mainhighway.com Fri Dec 21 10:10:02 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5jVh-0000oR-3h; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 10:10:01 -0500 Received: from [201.57.215.211] (helo=mainhighway.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5jVe-0003dg-VD; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 10:10:00 -0500 Received: from pessoal ([84.184.65.197]) by d3d739c9mainhighway.com with ESMTP id 0702761D10C3 for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 12:10:00 -0300 Message-ID: <001601c843ca$694df2b0$000bfc34@pessoal> From: organize To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org Subject: sbackup Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 12:10:00 -0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0013_01C843CA.694DF2B0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.3790.4682 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.2963 X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9ed51c9d1356100bce94f1ae4ec616a9 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C843CA.694DF2B0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable efficiency? Is something lost in the philosophy if the artist is that will attract others. An example is the youth culture in keyboard and screen. It is hard to predict what the outcome of ------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C843CA.694DF2B0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

distinguishing between real life and fantasy . The bottom line

Are you wanting a bi/gg er pe \nis?

As seen on TV

Ov \er 755,000 Men aro /und the world are already sat \isfied
Gain 4+ Inc /hes In Len /gth
Inc \rease Your Pe /nis Wid /th (Gir \th) By u/p-to 26%
100% Safe To Take, With NO Side Effe /cts
No Pumps! No Surgery! No Exercises!

is also changing rapidly. The majority of advertisement, logos,
= ------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C843CA.694DF2B0-- From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Fri Dec 21 10:48:08 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5k6a-0001uZ-Hs for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 10:48:08 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5k6Z-0001SX-VL for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 10:48:08 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J5jtu-000Mzn-MP for ccamp-data@psg.com; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 15:35:02 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-200.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FH_HAS_XAIMC, RDNS_NONE,USER_IN_ALL_SPAM_TO,USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [202.99.23.227] (helo=people.com.cn) by psg.com with smtp (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J5jtO-000Mw2-93 for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 15:34:47 +0000 Received: from people.com.cn([127.0.0.1]) by people.com.cn(AIMC 2.9.5.8) with SMTP id jmc476c39ed; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 23:47:43 +0800 Received: from megatron.ietf.org([156.154.16.145]) by people.com.cn(AIMC 2.9.5.8) with SMTP id jm110476737bf; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 05:47:03 +0800 Received: from megatron.ietf.org([156.154.16.145]) by people.com.cn(AIMC 2.9.5.8) with SMTP id AISP action; Tue, 18 Dec 2007 05:47:03 +0800 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4NDy-00009t-CM; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:10:06 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4NDu-00009H-TJ for i-d-announce@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:10:02 -0500 Received: from ns0.neustar.com ([156.154.16.158]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J4NDu-0001fW-9H for i-d-announce@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:10:02 -0500 Received: from stiedprstage1.ietf.org (stiedprstage1.va.neustar.com [10.31.47.10]) by ns0.neustar.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39E5632870; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 21:10:02 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ietf by stiedprstage1.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1J4NDu-0002Sc-4p; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:10:02 -0500 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 To: i-d-announce@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Message-Id: Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:10:02 -0500 X-Scan-Signature: f66b12316365a3fe519e75911daf28a8 Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: I-D Action:draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-eval-05.txt X-BeenThere: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Reply-To: internet-drafts@ietf.org List-Id: i-d-announce.ietf.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-AIMC-AUTH: (null) X-AIMC-MAILFROM: i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org X-AIMC-AUTH: (null) X-AIMC-MAILFROM: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org X-Auto-Forward: jaglee@people.com.cn jag@kw.com.cn Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: 0.9 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 1a1bf7677bfe77d8af1ebe0e91045c5b --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Common Control and Measurement Plane Working Group of the IETF. Title : Evaluation of existing GMPLS Protocols against Multi Layer and Multi Region Networks (MLN/MRN) Author(s) : J. Le Roux, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-eval-05.txt Pages : 16 Date : 2007-12-17 This document provides an evaluation of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) protocols and mechanisms against the requirements for Multi-Layer Networks (MLN) and Multi-Region Networks (MRN). In addition, this document identifies areas where additional protocol extensions or procedures are needed to satisfy these requirements, and provides guidelines for potential extensions.Conventions used in this document The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-eval-05.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-eval-05.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-eval-05.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2007-12-17160517.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-eval-05.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-eval-05.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2007-12-17160517.I-D\@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ I-D-Announce mailing list I-D-Announce@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce --NextPart-- From Mazvydas@Veit.de Fri Dec 21 10:59:48 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5kHs-0001N2-2X for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 10:59:48 -0500 Received: from host178-168-dynamic.19-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it ([79.19.168.178]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5kHr-0004cT-7J for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 10:59:47 -0500 Received: by 10.126.9.206 with SMTP id wQGfetNFfMlat; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 16:59:47 +0100 (GMT) Received: by 192.168.5.211 with SMTP id rZFGdIigpdCKtT.4247265018658; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 16:59:45 +0100 (GMT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 16:59:42 +0100 From: "Mazvydas Leopold" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org Subject: tularemi Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------020205080202080200010106" X-Spam-Score: 2.1 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 798b2e660f1819ae38035ac1d8d5e3ab --------------020205080202080200010106 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Why wait? you can have a huge dong now and have the best sex of your life! http://fourwese.com/ --------------020205080202080200010106 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Why wait? you can have a huge dong now and have the best sex of your
life! http://fourwese.com/
--------------020205080202080200010106-- From Pavlov@Veit.de Fri Dec 21 11:01:24 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5kJQ-0002oA-Mp for ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:01:24 -0500 Received: from host178-168-dynamic.19-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it ([79.19.168.178]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5kJQ-0004fk-1t for ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:01:24 -0500 Received: from nome-ba429b8591 ([154.165.54.184]:6682 "EHLO nome-ba429b8591" smtp-auth: TLS-CIPHER: TLS-PEER-CN1: ) by host178-168-dynamic.19-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it with ESMTP id S22FESNIDJKKVCAU (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Dec 2007 17:01:46 +0100 Message-ID: <6B0E194B.1868E66C@Veit.de> Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 17:01:19 +0100 From: "charlene Pavlov" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: ttyv{st{ Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 4.5 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 08e48e05374109708c00c6208b534009 Never seen both my wife and girlfriend come so easily, size does
matter and I am loving every minute of it! http://tenthingstodowiz.com/
From Hersheybezm@msvdolle.de Fri Dec 21 11:23:23 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5keh-0007ym-NP for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:23:23 -0500 Received: from [86.63.36.47] (helo=[86.63.36.47]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5keh-00063X-7L for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:23:23 -0500 Received: from Wallis ([136.182.93.32] helo=Wallis) by [86.63.36.47] ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1VrwQf-000MAY-Rl for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 16:23:51 -0000 Message-ID: <000301c843ed$cf60d900$2f243f56@Wallis> From: "Rufina Hershey" To: Subject: snoidarb Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 16:23:24 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0004_01C843ED.CF60D900" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Spam-Score: 2.1 (++) X-Scan-Signature: b19722fc8d3865b147c75ae2495625f2 ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C843ED.CF60D900 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Greeting ccamp-archive Rise easily your mens' strength just right now http://consonantlost.com Rufina Hershey ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C843ED.CF60D900 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Greeting ccamp-archive
Rise easily your mens' strength just right=20 now
http://consonantlost.com
Rufina Hershey
------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C843ED.CF60D900-- From YesenianightmarishBain@50states.com Fri Dec 21 11:48:02 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5l2Y-0003hS-6U; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:48:02 -0500 Received: from [190.43.50.100] (helo=usuario) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5l2X-0006aY-By; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:48:02 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host83515495.50states.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id MxAD4rpG38.935763.lpD.bDu.6921835644074 for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:47:50 +0500 Message-ID: <263901c843f1$3e1063e0$2101a8c0@usuario> From: "Lilian Yazzie" To: Cc: , =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Viagra would=20 help you to make better sex more often and to bring unimaginable = plesure=20 to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for = action in=20 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking = this=20 medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Viagra gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_2635_01C843F1.3E1063E0-- From dsafe@orgsoft.com Fri Dec 21 13:32:59 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5mg7-00014a-AU; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 13:32:59 -0500 Received: from aego38.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl ([79.186.170.38]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5mg5-0005yD-71; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 13:32:59 -0500 Received: from mshomealip6uba ([85.122.253.249]) by 26aaba4forgsoft.com (8.12.1/8.12.1) with SMTP id a6SVDOXG805115 for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 19:32:58 +0100 Message-ID: <000f01c84408$4ae79fe0$0628d704@mshomealip6uba> From: Lula Varner To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org Subject: I no taking Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 19:32:58 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000C_01C84408.4AE79FE0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.3000 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Spam-Score: 0.8 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9ed51c9d1356100bce94f1ae4ec616a9 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C84408.4AE79FE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This may not seem like a breakthrough discovery to most, but it course I have been able to "go" all around the world. I have Other virtual reality enthusiasts are preaching that virtual ------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C84408.4AE79FE0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

way in which programs like Architecture and Interior Design are

Are you wanting a bi/gg er pe \nis?

As seen on TV

Ov \er 725,000 Men aro /und the world are already sat \isfied
Gain 4+ Inc /hes In Len /gth
Inc \rease Your Pe /nis Wid /th (Gir \th) By u/p-to 27%
100% Safe To Take, With NO Side Effe /cts
No Pumps! No Surgery! No Exercises!

through around the term "interactive," in order to confuse people ------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C84408.4AE79FE0-- From ndelect@esva.com Fri Dec 21 13:37:40 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5mke-0004UN-RK; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 13:37:40 -0500 Received: from host113-93-static.35-85-b.business.telecomitalia.it ([85.35.93.113]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5mkd-0001A2-Ty; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 13:37:40 -0500 Received: from luca ([84.196.209.157] helo=luca) by 715d2355esva.com with ESMTP id 7865684B2BE2 for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 19:23:32 +0100 Message-ID: <001201c83c2b$513335b0$00e29d5c@luca> From: Francesca Shepherd To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org Subject: by tolerance Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 19:23:32 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000F_01C83C2B.513335B0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2462.1106 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2462.2963 X-Spam-Score: 2.6 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 9ed51c9d1356100bce94f1ae4ec616a9 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C83C2B.513335B0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1250" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable user from excess radiation. Other physical problems that occur Hackers will continue to hack but the stakes will be higher. The interaction extend only as far as they can be programmed. In ------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C83C2B.513335B0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1250" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

to order pizza from a simple command on a remote control.

Are you wanting a bi/gg er pe \nis?

As seen on TV

Ov \er 751,000 Men aro /und the world are already sat \isfied
Gain 2+ Inc /hes In Len /gth
Inc \rease Your Pe /nis Wid /th (Gir \th) By u/p-to 28%
100% Safe To Take, With NO Side Effe /cts
No Pumps! No Surgery! No Exercises!

get over the computer intimidation, which has caused some anxiety ------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C83C2B.513335B0-- From KarlaldrinMorrison@rottentomatoes.com Fri Dec 21 15:01:00 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5o3I-00068f-GE; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 15:01:00 -0500 Received: from [78.163.161.2] (helo=cc32) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5o3H-0003U5-RT; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 15:01:00 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host06805068.rottentomatoes.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id OXQaiLq666.380578.BnX.2AK.5852897582181 for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 22:01:16 -0200 Message-ID: <24ad201c8440c$4827e6d0$0301a8c0@cc32> From: "Cory George" To: Cc: , =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Viagra would=20 help you to make better sex more often and to bring unimaginable = plesure=20 to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for = action in=20 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking = this=20 medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Viagra gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_24ACE_01C8440C.4827E6D0-- From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Fri Dec 21 15:31:11 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5oWV-0001q5-JC for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 15:31:11 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J5oWU-0000Zo-HW for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 15:31:11 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J5oME-000NsJ-LI for ccamp-data@psg.com; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 20:20:34 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [62.128.201.248] (helo=asmtp1.iomartmail.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J5oLq-000NpH-T7 for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 20:20:22 +0000 Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.8) with ESMTP id lBLKJwiW019802; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 20:19:58 GMT Received: from your029b8cecfe (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lBLKJudc019767; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 20:19:58 GMT Message-ID: <01fc01c8440e$d9db2db0$0501a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "Greg Bernstein" Cc: References: <030501c840c9$3272fd20$9200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> <476AA711.3090905@grotto-networking.com> Subject: Re: Liaison received from ITU-T on T-MPLS ring protection Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 20:19:13 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 8de5f93cb2b4e3bee75302e9eacc33db Hi Greg, I see what you are saying. At the moment, however, there seems to have been no decision about a specific control plane for T-MPLS. There are a couple of ways this could be relevant to us, however... - Ring protection techniques could be used in a PSC network under the control of GMPLS. That is, GMPLS could be used to set up ring protection in a PSC network. I would want to see the requirements for this, however, since GMPLS appears to provide plenty of alternatives for protection and restoration it may be an uphill struggle to demonstrate why ring protection is beneficial in a PSC that is more like a mesh. - A GMPLS network may operate over rings that have underlying ring protection. In this case the ring protection provides link-level protection, and we know how to handle that. I am a little sceptical about the idea of mixing ring protection with end-to-end provisioning. Since MPLS gives us an easy mechanism for hierarchy, I don't see why we wouldn't traverse an MPLS protected ring as a single hop in an end-to-end LSP. Anyway... I think that the current work in the ITU-T for T-MPLS ring protection still only refers to the data plane. Cheers, Adrian ----- Original Message ----- From: "Greg Bernstein" To: "Adrian Farrel" Cc: Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 5:32 PM Subject: Re: Liaison received from ITU-T on T-MPLS ring protection > Hi all, it seems to me there maybe some implications for GMPLS based on > previous experience with "software based 4F-BLSRs", that is rings that are > setup on portions of a mesh network to provide fast redundant protection > using SDH like ring switching mechanisms. > These types of rings which are applicable to a number of layers (optical, > SDH, whatever) have traditionally had interoperability problems across > vendors. This has typically involved how to share the "ring map" > information (see section 17.1 of the liaison attachment). In addition > "nodes" need information on connections added and dropped so they can > prevent mis-connection (the "squelching" process). > > Obviously one way to keep track of a ring map is to "mark" a link as > belonging to a particular ring and distribute this info via GMPLS routing. > > Regards > > Greg B. > > > Adrian Farrel wrote: >> Hi, >> >> We received a liaison from the ITU-T that reads as follows... >> >> SG15 Q9 has nearly completed its work on a recommendation for >> T-MPLS Ring Protection - G.8132. It is targeted to consent this >> new recommendation in the next SG15 plenary meeting scheduled >> for Feb., 2008. >> >> We have attached the latest draft for your information and >> comments. >> >> We are requested to comment by 11th February 2008. >> >> At first glance, this work appears to concentrate on the data plane only >> and so is not within our scope. The MPLS working group was also copied >> and can handle any issues concerning the MPLS data plane. >> >> As always, you can see all incoming and outgoing communications for CCAMP >> at www.olddog.co.uk/ccamp.htm >> >> Thanks, >> Adrian >> >> >> > > -- > =================================================== > Dr Greg Bernstein, Grotto Networking (510) 573-2237 > > > From marcelo-digital_@datafull.com Sat Dec 22 05:19:24 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J61S0-0006QU-3T for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 05:19:24 -0500 Received: from avas-mr03.fibertel.com.ar ([24.232.0.216]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J61Rx-0004C2-0X for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 05:19:21 -0500 Received: from 200-127-234-3.cab.prima.net.ar ([200.127.234.3]:3365 "EHLO coloso" smtp-auth: "zoolander" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by avas-mr03.fibertel.com.ar with ESMTPA id S877872AbXLVKTQ; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 07:19:16 -0300 Message-ID: <3823-2200712622101929298@coloso> To: "TIERRA DIGITAL" Reply-To: "Tierra Digital" From: "Tierra Digital" Subject: NOTEBOOKS CABALLITO Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 07:19:29 -0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_105571127042221830101929448" X-Fib-Al-Info: Al X-Fib-Al-MRId: 6c7aaccca0e1e7df8b6667c95196d8bd X-Fib-Al-SA: analyzed X-Fib-Al-From: marcelo-digital_@datafull.com X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 00134749b78ab2213964fc53d03de937 ------=_NextPart_105571127042221830101929448 Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20 NOTEBOOK CABALLITO=20 =20 (011) 15-6971-7166 marcelo-digital@datafull=2Ecom NOTEBOOK BANGHO BQ1400C=20 • Modelo: BanghóMov CQ1400C • Procesador: Intel Celeron Mobile 520 1,6Hz • Memoria: 512Mb DDR2 667Mhz=2E (2 Slots Max 1Gb=2E) • Disco Rígido: SATA 80Gb=2E 5400RPM • Optico: Lectograbadora de DVD - DVDRW DUAL LAYER • VGA: Onboard 256MB maximo • Chipset: Via VN896 + VT8237A • Placa de Red 10/100, WIFI Wireless 802,11 b/g • Peso: 2,2Kg • Batería: 6 Celdas • Puertos: 3 x USB 2=2E0, One Express Card/54(34) slot, • Conectividad: Modem 56Kbps MDC v=2E92 • Lector de Memoria: 7 en 1 • Pantalla: 14" WXGA$2089 =20 =20 NOTEBOOK HP 530 CM420 Procesador Celeron M420 Disco Rigido 120 GB Memoria DDR2 512 MB 667MHz Pantalla 15=2E4 WXGA DVD-RW DUAL LAYER WIreless - Modem 56k $2905 =20 =20 NOTEBOOK HP 530 T2300 Procesador Core Duo T2300 Disco Rigido 120 GB Memoria DDR2 512 MB 667MHz Pantalla 15=2E4 WXGA DVD-RW DUAL LAYER WIreless - Modem 56k $3139 =20 =20 =20 TOSHIBA SATELLITE A135-SP4157 Procesador Celeron M520 Disco Rigido 100 GB Memoria DDR2 1024 MB 533MHz Pantalla 15=2E4 WXGA DVD-RW DUAL LAYER WIreless - Salida de TV Windows Vista Home Premium $2749 =20 TOSHIBA SATELLITE=20 A215-SP4057 Procesador AMD Athlon X2 TK55 Disco Rigido 160 GB Memoria DDR2 1024 MB 667MHz Pantalla 15=2E4 WXGA DVD-RW DUAL LAYER WIreless - Salida de TV Webcam 1=2E3M - Microfono Windows Vista Home Premium $3929 =20 TOSHIBA SATELLITE=20 U305-SP5017 Procesador Intel CoreT 2 Duo T5300 Disco Rigido 120 GB Memoria DDR2 1024 MB 533MHz Pantalla 13=2E3 WideScreen DVD-RW DUAL LAYER WIreless Bluetooth - IEEE 1394 Windows Vista Home Premium $5419 =20 =20 ACER AS5310-2054 Procesador Celeron M520 1=2E6GHz Disco Rigido 80 GB Memoria DDR2 512 MB Pantalla 15=2E4 WXGA DVD/CD-RW WIreless - Modem 56K LINPUS LINUX $2353 =20 =20 ACER AS5100-5637 Procesador AMD Turion 64 X2 TL52 Disco Rigido 120 GB Memoria DDR2 1024 MB Pantalla 15=2E4 WXGA DVD-RW DUAL LAYER WIreless - Modem 56k Windows Vista Home Premium $3539 =20 =20 =20 ACER AS5710-4852 Procesador Core Duo T2350 1=2E6 GHz Disco Rigido 120 GB Memoria DDR2 1024 MB Pantalla 15=2E4 WXGA DVD-RW DUAL LAYER WIreless - Modem 56K Webcam 1=2E3M - Microfono Windows Vista Home Premium $3649 =20 ACER AS7720-6508 Procesador Core Duo T5250 1=2E5 GHz Disco Rigido 250 GB Memoria DDR2 1024 MB Pantalla 17=2E0 WXGA DVD-RW DUAL LAYER WIreless - =09Bluetooth Windows Vista Home Premium $4629 Precios Finales con Factura C, entrega en local de Computación en = la zona de Caballito, Capital Federal=2E Argentina=2E Aceptamos pago con Tarjetas de Credito VISA, Mastercard, American Express,= Cabal y Carta Franca en Nuestro Local=2E Creditos en el acto con DNI, recibo de Sueldo y un Servicio=2E=20 ------=_NextPart_105571127042221830101929448 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
NOTEBOOK CABALLITO
(011) 15-6971-7166
marcelo-digital@datafull=2Ecom
NOTEBOOK BANG= HO BQ1400C

• Modelo: Banghó= Mov CQ1400C
• Procesador: Intel Celeron Mobile 520 1,6Hz
• Memoria: 512Mb DDR2 667Mhz=2E (2 Slots Max 1Gb=2E)
• Disco Rígido: SATA 80Gb=2E 5400RPM
• Optico: Lectograbadora de DVD - DVDRW DUAL LAYER
• VGA: Onboard 256MB maximo
• Chipset: Via VN896 + VT8237A
• Placa de Red 10/100, WIFI Wireless 802,11 b/g
• Peso: 2,2Kg
• Batería: 6 Celdas
• Puertos: 3 x USB 2=2E0, One Express Card/54(34) slot,
• Conectividad: Modem 56Kbps MDC v=2E92
• Lector de Memoria: 7 en 1
• Pantalla: 14" WXGA

$20= 89

NOTEBOOK HP 530 CM420

Procesador Celeron M420
Disco Rigido 120 GB
Memoria DDR2 512 MB 667MHz
Pantalla 15=2E4 WXGA
DVD-RW DUAL LAYER
WIreless - Modem 56k

$2905

NOTEBOOK HP 530 T2300

Procesador Core Duo T23= 00
Disco Rigido 120 GB
Memoria DDR2 512 MB 667MHz
Pantalla 15=2E4 WXGA
DVD-RW DUAL LAYER
WIreless - Modem 56k

$3139

=

TOSHIBA SATELLITE
=20 A135-SP4157

Procesador Celeron M520
Disco Rigido 100 GB
Memoria DDR2 1024 MB 533MHz
Pantalla 15=2E4 WXGA
DVD-RW DUAL LAYER
WIreless - Salida de TV
Windows Vista Home Premium

$2749

TOSHIBA SATELLITE
A215-SP4057

Procesador AMD Athlon X= 2 TK55
Disco Rigido 160 GB
Memoria DDR2 1024 MB 667MHz
Pantalla 15=2E4 WXGA
DVD-RW DUAL LAYER
WIreless - Salida de TV
Webcam 1=2E3M - Microfono
Windows Vista Home Premium

$3929

TOSHIBA SATELLITE
U305-SP5017

Procesador Intel CoreT = 2 Duo T5300
Disco Rigido 120 GB
Memoria DDR2 1024 MB 533MHz
Pantalla 13=2E3 WideScreen
DVD-RW DUAL LAYER
WIreless
Bluetooth - IEEE 1394
Windows Vista Home Premium

$5419

ACER AS5310-2054

Procesador Celeron M520 1=2E6GHz
Disco Rigido 80 GB
Memoria DDR2 512 MB
Pantalla 15=2E4 WXGA
DVD/CD-RW
WIreless - Modem 56K
LINPUS LINUX

$2353

 

ACER AS5100-5637

Procesador AMD Turion 64 X2 TL52
Disco Rigido 120 GB
Memoria DDR2 1024 MB
Pantalla 15=2E4 WXGA
DVD-RW DUAL LAYER
WIreless - Modem 56k
Windows Vista Home Premium

$3539

 

ACER AS5710-4852

Procesador Core Duo T2350 1=2E6 GHz
Disco Rigido 120 GB
Memoria DDR2 1024 MB
Pantalla 15=2E4 WXGA
DVD-RW DUAL LAYER
WIreless - Modem 56K
Webcam 1=2E3M - Microfono
Windows Vista Home Premium

$3649

ACER AS7720-6508

Procesador Core Duo T5250 1=2E5 GHz
Disco Rigido 250 GB
Memoria DDR2 1024 MB
Pantalla 17=2E0 WXGA
DVD-RW DUAL LAYER
WIreless - =09Bluetooth
Windows Vista Home Premium

$4629
Precios Finales= con Factura C, entrega en local de Computación en la zona de Cabal= lito, Capital Federal=2E Argentina=2E
Aceptamos pago con Tarjetas de Credito VISA, Mastercard, America= n Express, Cabal y Carta Franca en Nuestro Local=2E
Creditos en el acto con DNI, recibo de Sueldo y un Servicio=2E
------=_NextPart_105571127042221830101929448-- From BennyretardationMaldonado@straightblastgym.com Sat Dec 22 09:02:22 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J64vm-00021r-C5; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 09:02:22 -0500 Received: from adsl-pool-222.123.44-147.tttmaxnet.com ([222.123.44.147] helo=tee49) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J64vl-00017F-CK; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 09:02:22 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host44973129.straightblastgym.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id s1TjWZX217.578419.jB3.vfS.2891725356982 for ; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 21:01:34 -0700 Message-ID: <079901c844a3$3a9af150$fd01a8c0@TEE49> From: "Myron Hodges" To: , =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Viagra would=20 help you to make better sex more often and to bring unimaginable = plesure=20 to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for = action in=20 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking = this=20 medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Viagra gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_0795_01C844A3.3A9AF150-- From FrankiepickyWong@ghoulishgary.com Sat Dec 22 09:26:46 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J65JO-0002YD-8u; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 09:26:46 -0500 Received: from 5ac4ffca.bb.sky.com ([90.196.255.202] helo=luke) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J65JN-0001iM-SX; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 09:26:46 -0500 Received: from respire by ghoulishgary.com with SMTP id ALUCnlVIWb for ; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 14:26:43 +0000 From: "Santiago Frank" To: , Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J66wW-0004uS-Om; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 11:11:16 -0500 Received: from [83.1.53.116] (helo=j-0d9149e7f9ff4.interkam.pl) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J66wV-0001bR-1M; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 11:11:16 -0500 Received: from j0d9149e7f9ff4 ([69.196.86.135] helo=j0d9149e7f9ff4) by 74350153kaoni.com with ESMTP id 4199883242B565 for ; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 17:11:23 +0100 Message-ID: <001501c844bd$ad9797c0$00b7cdfc@j0d9149e7f9ff4> From: Sharlene W. Weaver To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org Subject: so competence Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 17:11:23 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0012_01C844BD.AD9797C0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.1158 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.4682 X-Spam-Score: 3.2 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: a7d6aff76b15f3f56fcb94490e1052e4 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0012_01C844BD.AD9797C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1251" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable trying to prove the existence of alternate dimensions; I've been my own to explore the jungles of the Internet, FTP,Gopher and future expression of ideas will require a layered, multi-modal ------=_NextPart_000_0012_01C844BD.AD9797C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1251" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

strong understanding of technology. In fact, artists will be
=

Proven method for a bi/gg er pe \nis?

As Seen On T V

Ov /er 781,000 Men aro /und the world are already sat \isfied
Gain 4+ Inc /hes In Len /gth
Inc \rease Your Pe /nis Wid /th (Gir \th) By u/p-to 26%
100% S \afe To Take, With NO Side Effe /cts
N o Pu \mps! N o Su \rgery! N o Exe \rcises!

cellular phone, and a mug of fresh, automatic-machine-made
------=_NextPart_000_0012_01C844BD.AD9797C0-- From ep667@scarlett-karcher.ig.pl Sat Dec 22 12:12:02 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J67tK-0004x8-ST for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 12:12:02 -0500 Received: from [78.168.1.223] (helo=[88.252.184.44]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J67tI-0005Y7-0w for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 12:12:02 -0500 Received: from fulya-bbdb9a011 ([108.189.16.137] helo=fulya-bbdb9a011) by [88.252.184.44] ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1JNplJ-000AIW-AE for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 19:12:25 +0200 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 19:12:04 +0200 To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org From: "ep Lobao" Subject: ubnellid Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: bb8eae9af85e4fcfe76f325e38493bf4 Before I was ashamed in the locker room, now I hang proudly amongst everybody http://sevenhosrt.com/ From Gadqxj@scarlett-karcher.ig.pl Sat Dec 22 12:15:38 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J67wo-0005sn-59 for ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 12:15:38 -0500 Received: from [78.168.1.223] (helo=[88.252.184.44]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J67wn-0005cL-F6 for ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 12:15:38 -0500 Received: from fulya-bbdb9a011 ([158.193.107.16] helo=fulya-bbdb9a011) by [88.252.184.44] ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1zHnub-000KRA-Ol for ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 19:16:16 +0200 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 19:15:41 +0200 From: "Hwee Gad" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: ucotibuc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 2.1 (++) X-Scan-Signature: bb8eae9af85e4fcfe76f325e38493bf4 She loves the feeling of the brand new me inside of her, huge and throbbing http://ninpoqas.com/ From TraceyrotePotts@space.com Sat Dec 22 12:40:02 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J68KQ-0004Uf-BR; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 12:40:02 -0500 Received: from 70-169-117-128-wip.wcht.ks.pixius.net ([70.169.117.128] helo=computer) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J68KP-0006Fv-V2; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 12:40:02 -0500 Received: from h by space.com with SMTP id yJSYCFWQcq for ; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 11:39:55 +0600 From: "Seymour Hopper" To: Subject: Best offer in gambling history . Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7bac9cb154eb5790ae3b2913587a40de Visit and start seeing the dollars coming. We know how to treat our players - how about a $999 welcome bonmus when you join? After thatit's only fun and winning. Get $999 you download our casino. http://worldcasinod.cn/ From xfamedieval@komorebi.com Sat Dec 22 13:20:29 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J68xZ-0007k8-DU; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 13:20:29 -0500 Received: from auh121.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl ([83.27.15.121]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J68xY-0007cq-A0; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 13:20:28 -0500 Received: from kompszefa [141.211.82.234] (port=22947 helo=kompszefa) by 790f1b53komorebi.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with SMTP id 352879337E816 for ; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 19:23:23 +0100 Message-ID: <001a01c844d0$1e73a1c0$06f9c014@kompszefa> From: Johnny A. Burks To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org Subject: her doesn+t Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 19:23:23 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0017_01C844D0.1E73A1C0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2963 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.1081 X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9ed51c9d1356100bce94f1ae4ec616a9 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0017_01C844D0.1E73A1C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable eliminating the need for paper as medium for communication. = various modern simulators. It is ridiculous the way ad agencies future, I fear to question..? If technology dominates the medium ------=_NextPart_000_0017_01C844D0.1E73A1C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

when ever I write it is not about things which are as of yet
<= /P>

Proven method for a bi/gg er pe \nis?

As Seen On T V

Ov /er 717,000 Men aro /und the world are already sat \isfied
Gain 2+ Inc /hes In Len /gth
Inc \rease Your Pe /nis Wid /th (Gir \th) By u/p-to 21%
100% S \afe To Take, With NO Side Effe /cts
N o Pu \mps! N o Su \rgery! N o Exe \rcises!

use to me. While it can be enjoyable and amusing to manipulate
------=_NextPart_000_0017_01C844D0.1E73A1C0-- From LynnbookbindBroussard@discovermagazine.com Sat Dec 22 15:24:17 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6AtN-00037X-OA; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 15:24:17 -0500 Received: from v85f5.v.pppool.de ([89.57.133.245] helo=sn201421210003.samsung.router) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6AtN-0002fs-10; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 15:24:17 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host33630789.discovermagazine.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id fkW5QF6b23.031457.HmT.TYL.7202851881460 for ; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 21:24:02 -0100 Message-ID: <295701c844d8$9c7e5990$65dca8c0@SN201421210003> From: "Audrey Hickey" To: Subject: Confirmation link Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 21:24:02 -0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_2953_01C844D8.9C7E5990" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d16ce744298aacf98517bc7c108bd198 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_2953_01C844D8.9C7E5990 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Even if you have no erection problems Viagra would help you to make = better sex more often and to bring unimaginable plesure to her. Just = disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for action in 30 = minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking this = medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours! Package Quantity Price in your local drugstore* Our price LearnMoreNow 10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49 30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50 60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02 90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40 180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46 When you are young and stressed up… When you are aged and never give up… Viagra gives you confidence in any chance, every time. ------=_NextPart_000_2953_01C844D8.9C7E5990 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Viagra would=20 help you to make better sex more often and to bring unimaginable = plesure=20 to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for = action in=20 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking = this=20 medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Viagra gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_2953_01C844D8.9C7E5990-- From JessieolsonDenton@zope.org Sat Dec 22 15:47:41 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6BG1-0005pl-HE; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 15:47:41 -0500 Received: from [62.178.64.219] (helo=pc2) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6BG1-0003CH-4M; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 15:47:41 -0500 Received: from bemoan by zope.org with SMTP id 34U1Qj9Na1 for ; Sun, 23 Dec 2007 21:42:23 -0100 From: "Charlene Hendrickson" To: Cc: , Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6BWo-00019K-VP for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:05:02 -0500 Received: from host36-160-dynamic.10-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it ([79.10.160.36]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6BWn-0003XS-FT for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:05:01 -0500 Received: from patrizia ([199.116.8.109] helo=patrizia) by host36-160-dynamic.10-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1Kqeaj-000BDY-RV for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 22:05:20 +0100 Message-ID: <000501c844de$510cc900$24a00a4f@patrizia> From: "Dung Meer" To: Subject: roredrev Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 22:05:01 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0004_01C844E6.B2D13100" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Spam-Score: 2.1 (++) X-Scan-Signature: e5ba305d0e64821bf3d8bc5d3bb07228 ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C844E6.B2D13100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Regards ccamp-archive Which bottle contains 10g pills? http://bluedouble.com Dung Meer ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C844E6.B2D13100 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Regards ccamp-archive
Which bottle contains 10g pills?
http://bluedouble.com
Dung Meer
------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C844E6.B2D13100-- From lionel@surecom.com Sat Dec 22 23:05:37 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6I5p-0004aL-O3 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 23:05:37 -0500 Received: from cpe-071-076-051-019.sc.res.rr.com ([71.76.51.19] helo=71.76.51.19) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6I5o-0004Vp-3W for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Dec 2007 23:05:37 -0500 Message-ID: <000a01c84519$06f268a4$ab1f0f9e@sxauwbwe> From: "jody chesney" To: Subject: 2008 Designer Shoes Collection from Gucci Ugg Prada Chanel Dsquared Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 02:18:12 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0007_01C84519.06F0A2A2" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-Spam-Score: 4.7 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 082a9cbf4d599f360ac7f815372a6a15 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C84519.06F0A2A2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Finally, the 2008 Collections are in, enjoy 70% OFF Brand Name = Shoes & Boots=20 for Men & Women from TOP Fashion Designers. Choose from a variety of = the season's hottest models from=20 Gucci, Prada, Chanel, Dior, Ugg Boots, Burberry, D&G, Dsquared & much more. VISIT Now and Save TODAY! Free International Shipping on ALL = ORDERS!=20 CLICK HERE www.streetnstrut69.net Now That's an AMAZING DEAL!=20 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C84519.06F0A2A2 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Finally, the 2008 Collections are in, enjoy 70% OFF Brand Name = Shoes & Boots
for Men & Women from TOP Fashion Designers. Choose from a variety of = the season's
hottest models from Gucci, Prada, Chanel, = Dior, Ugg Boots, Burberry, D&G, Dsquared &
much more. VISIT = Now and Save TODAY! Free International Shipping on ALL = ORDERS!

CLICK = HERE www.streetnstrut69.net

Now That's an AMAZING DEAL!
------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C84519.06F0A2A2-- From victor30judas1@tirol.com Sun Dec 23 05:39:50 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6OFK-0007bx-P1 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 23 Dec 2007 05:39:50 -0500 Received: from cpe-76-90-75-61.socal.res.rr.com ([76.90.75.61] helo=76.90.75.61) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6OFK-0008MO-D4 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 23 Dec 2007 05:39:50 -0500 Message-ID: <000701c84550$024c60c9$a029a4b4@wxqqlw> From: "guntar theophilus" To: "Kristen Abel" Subject: exclusive watches, lowest prices possible rolex Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 08:52:17 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-Spam-Score: 4.4 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 2870a44b67ee17965ce5ad0177e150f4 Perfectly crafted luxury timepieces...the finest of products at the LOWEST prices!! http://polyaxmas.net/ From EleanorvagabondSeymour@cdkitchen.com Sun Dec 23 07:58:31 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6QPX-0008SV-2P; Sun, 23 Dec 2007 07:58:31 -0500 Received: from 84.120.20.39.dyn.user.ono.com ([84.120.20.39] helo=yulia53b4f7cde) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6QPW-0002VP-GZ; Sun, 23 Dec 2007 07:58:30 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host29600236.cdkitchen.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id mWXG4kV160.401085.d1s.L2m.9236124739643 for ; Sun, 23 Dec 2007 13:58:26 -0100 Message-ID: <6df201c84563$84539c50$27147854@yulia53b4f7cde> From: "April Herron" To: Subject: Your order Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 13:58:26 -0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_6DEE_01C84563.84539C50" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d16ce744298aacf98517bc7c108bd198 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_6DEE_01C84563.84539C50 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Even if you have no erection problems Viagra would help you to make = better sex more often and to bring unimaginable plesure to her. Just = disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for action in 30 = minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking this = medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours! Package Quantity Price in your local drugstore* Our price LearnMoreNow 10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49 30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50 60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02 90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40 180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46 When you are young and stressed up… When you are aged and never give up… Viagra gives you confidence in any chance, every time. ------=_NextPart_000_6DEE_01C84563.84539C50 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Viagra would=20 help you to make better sex more often and to bring unimaginable = plesure=20 to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for = action in=20 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking = this=20 medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Viagra gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_6DEE_01C84563.84539C50-- From DanielleanastigmatGibbons@wilson-co.com Sun Dec 23 07:58:51 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6QPr-0008VG-1m; Sun, 23 Dec 2007 07:58:51 -0500 Received: from [213.189.73.226] (helo=lionheart) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6QPp-0002Vm-S2; Sun, 23 Dec 2007 07:58:50 -0500 Received: from keynote by wilson-co.com with SMTP id iSERBCgjAI for ; Sun, 23 Dec 2007 15:58:28 -0300 From: "Jill Seymour" To: , Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6QaB-0000n9-5E for ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Dec 2007 08:09:31 -0500 Received: from [88.254.210.40] (helo=[88.254.210.40]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6Qa8-0002no-AC for ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 23 Dec 2007 08:09:30 -0500 Received: from nur1 ([106.111.130.105]:29072 "EHLO nur1" smtp-auth: TLS-CIPHER: TLS-PEER-CN1: ) by [88.254.210.40] with ESMTP id S22FTJCVZQKYXKAQ (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 Dec 2007 15:09:42 +0200 Message-ID: <262E31E7.ACDE2BE6@comunita.zzn.com> Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 15:09:26 +0200 From: "Paavo Lanman" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: 0sugar Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 2.6 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 7bac9cb154eb5790ae3b2913587a40de Perfect solution to all your problems related to your cock, is here!
Take the pills and see the effect on the next day! Quality product
guaranteed http://www.vicinitao.com/
From pamJorge@la-coume.com Sun Dec 23 09:08:52 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6RVc-00048m-70 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 23 Dec 2007 09:08:52 -0500 Received: from [190.40.20.229] (helo=client-190.40.20.229.speedy.net.pe) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6RVb-0004HK-Nm for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 23 Dec 2007 09:08:52 -0500 Received: by 10.18.155.179 with SMTP id PBSffkAYVbjnW; Sun, 23 Dec 2007 09:08:50 -0500 (GMT) Received: by 192.168.142.209 with SMTP id QJyKrlCpMZSCKP.0669460794980; Sun, 23 Dec 2007 09:08:48 -0500 (GMT) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 09:08:45 -0500 To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org From: "pam Jorge" Subject: ncolpata Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 3.0 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: bb8eae9af85e4fcfe76f325e38493bf4 Ever since I tried VPXL herbal, Paris moans louder all night. http://xnonoies.com/ From wwfarm@anacortes.net Sun Dec 23 15:28:14 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6XQk-0004kS-Ir; Sun, 23 Dec 2007 15:28:14 -0500 Received: from [189.12.224.248] (helo=anacortes.net) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6XQj-0003QY-OF; Sun, 23 Dec 2007 15:28:14 -0500 Received: from familia ([210.40.221.228]:22204 "HELO familia" smtp-auth: TLS-CIPHER: TLS-PEER-CN1: ) by f8e00cbdanacortes.net with ESMTP id n5GEXOVY300558 (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 Dec 2007 18:28:13 -0200 Message-ID: <001501c84591$940f6330$06bd3e9c@familia> From: regions To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org Subject: to teach Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 18:28:13 -0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0012_01C84591.940F6330" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.3790.4682 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.1158 X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9ed51c9d1356100bce94f1ae4ec616a9 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0012_01C84591.940F6330 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable direct, or face-to-face contact, and a loss of the more human vital information on disk. Even in this class, so many people attack. Noth= ing happens; impotently he kicks the console, ------=_NextPart_000_0012_01C84591.940F6330 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

using the electronic pen and tablet for input, I was provided

Proven method for a bi/gg er pe \nis?

As Seen On T V

Ov /er 776,000 Men aro /und the world are already sat \isfied
Gain 4+ Inc /hes In Len /gth
Inc \rease Your Pe /nis Wid /th (Gir \th) By u/p-to 23%
100% S \afe To Take, With NO Side Effe /cts
N o Pu \mps! N o Su \rgery! N o Exe \rcises!

it one way, the way you describe it. Something is lost when you
------=_NextPart_000_0012_01C84591.940F6330-- From JauntyWesley@absolutvitamin.de Sun Dec 23 18:53:12 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6ad6-0006xt-Mj for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 23 Dec 2007 18:53:12 -0500 Received: from if02t2-89-83-251-72.d4.club-internet.fr ([89.83.251.72]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6ad6-0007yP-1L for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 23 Dec 2007 18:53:12 -0500 Received: from lc-ae56154f9cb4 ([129.176.145.194]:23330 "EHLO lc-ae56154f9cb4" smtp-auth: TLS-CIPHER: TLS-PEER-CN1: ) by if02t2-89-83-251-72.d4.club-internet.fr with ESMTP id S22PZNFVYSTJEMLJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Dec 2007 00:54:13 +0100 Message-ID: <923DCA30.02231B35@absolutvitamin.de> Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 00:53:36 +0100 From: "Jaunty Wesley" User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org Subject: uirassed Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 071223-0, 23/12/2007), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Score: 3.5 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 8ac499381112328dd60aea5b1ff596ea Hi there ccamp-archive Become really wanted by women in 2008! http://propercreate.com Jaunty Wesley From GlennabandwidthRosen@fundmycase.com Mon Dec 24 04:33:54 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6jh3-0000pr-UO; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 04:33:53 -0500 Received: from p5496cea3.dip.t-dialin.net ([84.150.206.163] helo=franz.speedportw700v) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6jh3-00020G-IG; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 04:33:53 -0500 Received: from vault by fundmycase.com with SMTP id IALjRssObc for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 10:33:47 -0100 From: "Keisha Michaud" To: , Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6mjB-0004Vv-5Z; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 07:48:17 -0500 Received: from pool-71-172-180-99.nwrknj.east.verizon.net ([71.172.180.99] helo=your4f1261a8e5.myhome.westell.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6mjA-0006yj-Qj; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 07:48:17 -0500 Received: from nomograph by allamericanrejects.com with SMTP id MvxZs0u8PS for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 07:48:07 +0500 From: "David Davis" To: Subject: Our casino is for everyone who likes to win! Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 4.1 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 7bac9cb154eb5790ae3b2913587a40de After thatit's only fun and winning. Play your favorite games from the comfort of your home, USA players ARE included! Come see what it means to be a VIP. Get to know your new casino home! http://worldcasinoc.com.cn/ From RichardenstatiteJohnson@biometricassociates.com Mon Dec 24 07:48:46 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6mje-0004ga-95; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 07:48:46 -0500 Received: from [117.47.5.121] (helo=uiu9c560282f30) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6mjd-0006zF-JZ; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 07:48:46 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host50208312.biometricassociates.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id 6sBKbLQd95.218230.Myo.Sy6.0407080629061 for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 19:48:15 -0700 Message-ID: <110ab01c8462b$4b786aa0$0201a8c0@UIU9C560282F30> From: "Paul Jackson" To: Cc: , =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Viagra would=20 help you to make better sex more often and to bring unimaginable = plesure=20 to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for = action in=20 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking = this=20 medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Viagra gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_110A7_01C8462B.4B786AA0-- From abdulnightingalize4907104@yahoo.com Mon Dec 24 08:00:00 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6muW-0006Z6-FC; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 08:00:00 -0500 Received: from e177232160.adsl.alicedsl.de ([85.177.232.160]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6muV-0007Ai-IA; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 08:00:00 -0500 X-Originating-IP: 0.156.246.212 by smtp.85.177.232.160; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 07:59:57 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Eva Williamson" <16ng@ietf.org> Reply-To: "Eva Williamson" <16ng@ietf.org> To: 16ng@ietf.org Subject: Repl1ca watch is a perfect gift! Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 07:59:57 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Spam-Score: 2.4 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 08e48e05374109708c00c6208b534009 Winter is hitting and christmas are coming. Do you need perfect gift? 0rder high qual1ty repl1ca of w4tches, purses & bags from 2008! http://www.uyhhhen.com/ From lcffk@boatronix.com Mon Dec 24 08:13:12 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6n7I-0007hv-Bk; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 08:13:12 -0500 Received: from 137.13.95.219.kmr01-home.tm.net.my ([219.95.13.137] helo=personal-232407) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6n7H-0007Yw-10; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 08:13:11 -0500 Received: from [219.95.13.137] by email.taycom.com; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 21:13:01 +0800 Message-ID: <01c84671$c3c86c80$890d5fdb@lcffk> From: "Trey Hill" To: Subject: Re: Fire Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 21:13:01 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Spam-Score: 3.9 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 8ac499381112328dd60aea5b1ff596ea Grow your Manhood up to 3 more inches http://www.beeittee.com factors is that no compensation your time is too important and organized the Firm to the how patterns are Dr. T. Berry Brazelton praised From Emberger@churchinthecity.com Mon Dec 24 10:34:49 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6pKL-0007hW-8a for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 10:34:49 -0500 Received: from [88.235.38.135] (helo=[88.235.38.135]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6pKK-0002Yd-GO for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 10:34:49 -0500 Received: by 10.168.175.174 with SMTP id OmLMDUhaFtaBC; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 17:34:47 +0200 (GMT) Received: by 192.168.176.122 with SMTP id ULIBrETRwplblL.1057912449661; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 17:34:45 +0200 (GMT) Message-ID: <000901c84642$80cdb590$8726eb58@profilopc> From: "els Emberger" To: Subject: metsgitu Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 17:34:42 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0005_01C84653.44568590" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e5ba305d0e64821bf3d8bc5d3bb07228 ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C84653.44568590 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-9" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable hello ccamp-archive super-size of your willy http://fitglad.com els Emberger ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C84653.44568590 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-9" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
hello ccamp-archive
super-size of your willy
http://fitglad.com
els Emberger
------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C84653.44568590-- From GuadalupevtMoody@bostonsportsmedia.com Mon Dec 24 11:03:25 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6pm1-0002gC-8r; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 11:03:25 -0500 Received: from [190.42.219.139] (helo=soniaii) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6plz-0003Fy-AD; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 11:03:25 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host05449944.bostonsportsmedia.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id IC7uTLXv83.255248.T3z.7vA.2865075314597 for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 11:03:08 +0500 Message-ID: <13c8701c84646$7e0b8b80$0a01a8c0@SONIAII> From: "Levi Doyle" To: , =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Viagra would=20 help you to make better sex more often and to bring unimaginable = plesure=20 to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for = action in=20 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking = this=20 medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Viagra gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_13C83_01C84646.7E0B8B80-- From windsor77tim@3com.com Mon Dec 24 13:36:40 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6sAK-0000L6-55 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 13:36:40 -0500 Received: from aif140.internetdsl.tpnet.pl ([83.16.213.140]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6sAI-0007NL-Oh for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 13:36:39 -0500 Message-ID: <000901c8465b$035252bb$7f4a88a6@atqrwy> From: "jarret soua" To: "Elvira Ragland" Subject: perfectly crafted exclusive watches rolex Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 16:49:12 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-Spam-Score: 1.7 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 2870a44b67ee17965ce5ad0177e150f4 Perfectly crafted luxury timepieces...the finest of products at the LOWEST prices!! http://viatxmas.net/ From CarminepinholeHurley@nationalreview.com Mon Dec 24 14:25:40 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6svk-0000xB-A7; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 14:25:40 -0500 Received: from [190.44.194.34] (helo=casa) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6svj-0008Si-Kx; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 14:25:40 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host29767703.nationalreview.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id s36HWYtW22.114221.nIf.vJN.2510884445033 for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 15:25:18 +0400 Message-ID: <13f0d401c84662$c20620e0$6501a8c0@casa> From: "Reid Petty" To: Cc: , =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Viagra would=20 help you to make better sex more often and to bring unimaginable = plesure=20 to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for = action in=20 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking = this=20 medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Viagra gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_13F0D0_01C84662.C20620E0-- From Justyna-okabe@htmlz.com Mon Dec 24 14:29:34 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6szW-0001lE-4j for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 14:29:34 -0500 Received: from host87-199-dynamic.21-87-r.retail.telecomitalia.it ([87.21.199.87] helo=host220-71-dynamic.3-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6szU-00005h-HQ for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 14:29:33 -0500 Received: from destino2 by htmlz.com with ASMTP id 93F2B33D for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 20:30:32 +0100 Received: from destino2 ([110.103.126.189]) by htmlz.com with ESMTP id D9C0DB3A4779 for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 20:30:32 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 20:30:17 +0100 From: "Justyna okabe" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org Subject: planstel Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 2.8 (++) X-Scan-Signature: bb8eae9af85e4fcfe76f325e38493bf4 Bigger and thicker penises give your partner greater pleasure everyday http://aweopder.com/ From Greenup@htmlz.com Mon Dec 24 14:35:15 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6t51-0003cV-6E for ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 14:35:15 -0500 Received: from host87-199-dynamic.21-87-r.retail.telecomitalia.it ([87.21.199.87] helo=host220-71-dynamic.3-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6t4z-0000Fc-Cl for ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 14:35:15 -0500 Received: from destino2 ([194.148.71.27] helo=destino2) by host220-71-dynamic.3-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1NPIiP-000LJK-Dp for ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 20:36:14 +0100 Message-ID: <8C3B332B.0844ECFF@htmlz.com> Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 20:35:57 +0100 From: "Serge Greenup" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: plantear Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 2.6 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 08e48e05374109708c00c6208b534009 Pamela has big breasts and loves a big schlong, make sure yours is up
to it http://www.jierose.com/
From christophe762@barabamba.se Mon Dec 24 16:55:55 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6vH9-00074X-UY for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 16:55:55 -0500 Received: from [86.60.112.233] (helo=[84.22.249.221]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6vH7-0003Mp-3z for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 16:55:55 -0500 Received: by 10.226.199.176 with SMTP id HKDyABKlKcQMQ; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 00:55:49 +0300 (GMT) Received: by 192.168.126.65 with SMTP id NJmnnqfJjGPqls.8022465320976; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 00:55:47 +0300 (GMT) Message-ID: <000a01c84677$bbd28e10$ddf91654@khalilex22rwk5> From: "christophe Kushan" To: Subject: jskolens Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 00:55:44 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0004_01C84690.E11FC610" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464 ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C84690.E11FC610 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello ccamp-archive The volume of your male stick is a way 2 important! http://fitglad.com christophe Kushan ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C84690.E11FC610 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello ccamp-archive
The volume of your male stick is a way 2=20 important!
http://fitglad.com
christophe Kushan
------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C84690.E11FC610-- From beacher@telia.com Mon Dec 24 18:01:44 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6wIq-0002rW-S4 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 18:01:44 -0500 Received: from adsl-82-120-192-81.adsl.iam.net.ma ([81.192.120.82] helo=81.192.120.82) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6wIn-0004mo-G9 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 18:01:44 -0500 Message-ID: <000901c84680$07a85d86$e70237a4@viyqve> From: "darrin sam" To: Subject: Breitling Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 21:14:12 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0006_01C84680.07A712A1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d8ae4fd88fcaf47c1a71c804d04f413d This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C84680.07A712A1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Prestige replicas =20 Most popular watches Rolex Datejusts•Cartier•Hublot•Panerai =20 =20 Most popular TIFFANY & CO. JEWERLY Tiffany & CO Necklace =20 Most popular PENS Mont Blanc Rollerball•Gucci Roller•St Dupont Ballpoint =20 Click here =09 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C84680.07A712A1 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Prestige
replicas

Most popular = watches

Rolex = Datejusts•Cartier•Hublot•Panerai

=20

Most popular TIFFANY & CO. = JEWERLY

Tiffany & CO Necklace

Most popular PENS

Mont Blanc = Rollerball•Gucci Roller•St Dupont Ballpoint
Click here =09
------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C84680.07A712A1-- From PatricarenalGuidry@nysun.com Mon Dec 24 20:55:55 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6z1P-0006gA-Oy; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 20:55:55 -0500 Received: from [201.228.76.146] (helo=cfcf544a6fd595) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6z1P-0007t9-A8; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 20:55:55 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host93479495.nysun.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id EJcZt1Fv77.221641.kag.U05.2112533747159 for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 20:55:32 +0500 Message-ID: <158401c84699$3fd874b0$6e01a8c0@cfcf544a6fd595> From: "Helena Darnell" To: , =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Viagra would=20 help you to make better sex more often and to bring unimaginable = plesure=20 to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for = action in=20 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking = this=20 medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Viagra gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_1580_01C84699.3FD874B0-- From pacific@nvttech.com Mon Dec 24 21:31:18 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6zZe-0001c1-6I for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 21:31:18 -0500 Received: from [41.221.19.72] (helo=phqmjr) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J6zZd-0008Tn-Hj for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 21:31:18 -0500 Received: (qmail 24262 invoked from network); Tue, 25 Dec 2007 03:31:18 +0100 Received: from unknown (HELO skbu) (102.127.157.210) by phqmjr with SMTP; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 03:31:18 +0100 Message-ID: <000501c8469e$3af57100$d29d7f66@skbu> From: To: Subject: Merry Christmas From your Secret Santa Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 03:31:18 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="windows-1252"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Spam-Score: 2.8 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 7aefe408d50e9c7c47615841cb314bed do you have a min? Nothing chilly about this. See for yourself. This will be the best 2 min you spend this holiday. hehe http://merrychristmasdude.com/ From AdammuttonBrooks@infamousx.com Tue Dec 25 00:59:01 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J72of-0001sT-3K; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 00:59:01 -0500 Received: from cm43.theta17.maxonline.com.sg ([222.165.17.43] helo=d6km2q1s) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J72oe-0003IL-9p; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 00:59:00 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host02034869.infamousx.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id ZPVv4sYY29.542123.q7j.Iia.3449639165165 for ; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 13:58:46 -0800 Message-ID: <1775f01c846bb$3bc93590$6401a8c0@D6KM2Q1S> From: "Eugene Ward" To: Subject: Approval process Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 13:58:46 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_1775B_01C846BB.3BC93590" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d16ce744298aacf98517bc7c108bd198 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_1775B_01C846BB.3BC93590 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Even if you have no erection problems Viagra would help you to make = better sex more often and to bring unimaginable plesure to her. Just = disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for action in 30 = minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking this = medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours! Package Quantity Price in your local drugstore* Our price LearnMoreNow 10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49 30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50 60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02 90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40 180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46 When you are young and stressed up… When you are aged and never give up… Viagra gives you confidence in any chance, every time. ------=_NextPart_000_1775B_01C846BB.3BC93590 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Viagra would=20 help you to make better sex more often and to bring unimaginable = plesure=20 to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for = action in=20 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking = this=20 medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Viagra gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_1775B_01C846BB.3BC93590-- From CareyillHarrell@newadvent.org Tue Dec 25 05:12:53 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J76mL-000459-2t; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 05:12:53 -0500 Received: from ip-83-99-24-236.dyn.luxdsl.pt.lu ([83.99.24.236] helo=pc) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J76mK-0008El-MX; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 05:12:52 -0500 Received: from whale by newadvent.org with SMTP id Ofwyx8QwRD for ; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 11:12:50 -0100 From: "Roscoe Hartman" To: Subject: Come find out. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 3.9 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 7bac9cb154eb5790ae3b2913587a40de Huge progressive jackpots, slots, multi-hand, and single-hand blackjack. USA players too! Download and GO! $999 welcome bonus will be deposited in your new casino account! Win $$$ instead of throwing it all away at other casinos. http://worldacasino.cn/ From cadetship@metaproposreg.com Tue Dec 25 06:36:24 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J785A-0001dT-QA for ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 06:36:24 -0500 Received: from adsl196-82-200-217-196.adsl196-15.iam.net.ma ([196.217.200.82] helo=wbqrhycq) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J785A-0006rV-2R for ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 06:36:24 -0500 Message-ID: <000901c846e8$602d5600$0100007f@ctgvxm> From: "Kiki Fisher" To: Subject: Microsoft Vista Ultimate for 89, Retails @ 399 (You Save 310) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 11:36:23 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 12.0.4210 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-Spam-Score: 4.0 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 856eb5f76e7a34990d1d457d8e8e5b7f type xpxmas. com in Internet Explorer crystal reports professional edition 11 - 69 nero 7 premium - 39 solid edge v17 - 69 readiris pro 11.5 for mac - 39 adobe encore dvd 2 - 49 microsoft visual basic professional 6.0 - 49 autodesk autocad lt 2008 - 69 sony sound forge 9.0 - 49 alias motionbuilder 6.0 - 49 discreet combustion 4.0 for windows - 69 autodesk autocad lt 2008 - 69 alias motionbuilder 6.0 - 49 creative suite 3 design premium for win - 269 grand theft auto: san andreas - 29 virtualdj 4.3 for mac - 39 adobe golive cs2 - 49 From vivian@thetravelerslink.com Tue Dec 25 06:36:25 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J785B-0001dg-7c for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 06:36:25 -0500 Received: from adsl196-82-200-217-196.adsl196-15.iam.net.ma ([196.217.200.82] helo=wbqrhycq) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J785A-0006rU-B4 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 06:36:25 -0500 Message-ID: <000901c846e8$602d5600$0100007f@ctgvxm> From: "Vicky Anderson" To: Subject: Microsoft Vista Ultimate for 89, Retails @ 399 (You Save 310) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 11:36:23 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 12.0.4210 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-Spam-Score: 4.0 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 856eb5f76e7a34990d1d457d8e8e5b7f type xpxmas. com in Internet Explorer crystal reports professional edition 11 - 69 nero 7 premium - 39 solid edge v17 - 69 readiris pro 11.5 for mac - 39 adobe encore dvd 2 - 49 microsoft visual basic professional 6.0 - 49 autodesk autocad lt 2008 - 69 sony sound forge 9.0 - 49 alias motionbuilder 6.0 - 49 discreet combustion 4.0 for windows - 69 autodesk autocad lt 2008 - 69 alias motionbuilder 6.0 - 49 creative suite 3 design premium for win - 269 grand theft auto: san andreas - 29 virtualdj 4.3 for mac - 39 adobe golive cs2 - 49 From penko.Sage@cumpagneia.ch Tue Dec 25 07:14:58 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J78gU-0001KN-5z for ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 07:14:58 -0500 Received: from host29-223-dynamic.2-87-r.retail.telecomitalia.it ([87.2.223.29]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J78gT-0002j5-H9 for ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 07:14:58 -0500 Received: from VALENTINA ([165.101.24.161] helo=VALENTINA) by host29-223-dynamic.2-87-r.retail.telecomitalia.it ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1hiWio-000IEL-QC for ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 13:15:29 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 13:14:59 +0100 From: "penko Sage" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: valmen Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------000208040805070105070300" X-Spam-Score: 3.5 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 798b2e660f1819ae38035ac1d8d5e3ab --------------000208040805070105070300 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Upsize your penis, Upsize your confidence, and change your life forever! http://www.nusteroe.com/ --------------000208040805070105070300 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Upsize your penis, Upsize your confidence, and change your life
forever! http://www.nusteroe.com/
--------------000208040805070105070300-- From MEDINA_mutasin@tedfineart.com.au Tue Dec 25 08:20:09 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J79hZ-0008RX-Ov for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 08:20:09 -0500 Received: from [91.146.7.4] (helo=[91.146.7.4]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J79hY-0004SK-EY for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 08:20:08 -0500 Received: from aquarius_pc ([145.149.84.84] helo=aquarius_pc) by [91.146.7.4] ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1oNrJr-000AWR-ke for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 17:20:57 +0400 Message-ID: <000c01c846f8$e487d500$0407925b@aquariuspc> From: "MEDINA mutasin" To: Subject: reactiep Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 17:20:18 +0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0006_01C8471A.6B997500" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Spam-Score: 1.9 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464 ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C8471A.6B997500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1251" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Evening ccamp-archive The volume of your male stick is a way 2 important! http://fitglad.com MEDINA mutasin ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C8471A.6B997500 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1251" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Evening ccamp-archive
The volume of your male stick is a way 2=20 important!
http://fitglad.com
MEDINA mutasin
------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C8471A.6B997500-- From Brannek.Haessler@homoeopath.co.uk Tue Dec 25 08:49:27 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7A9v-0004P5-5y for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 08:49:27 -0500 Received: from [88.252.137.249] (helo=[88.252.159.157]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7A9t-0005SZ-Pw for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 08:49:26 -0500 Received: from rebellious ([171.168.144.0] helo=rebellious) by [88.252.159.157] ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1aLEOH-000RBM-iA for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 15:49:56 +0200 Message-ID: <37A942D9.50EB2687@homoeopath.co.uk> Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 15:49:23 +0200 From: "Brannek Haessler" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org Subject: chihchia Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030805000207060001050503" X-Spam-Score: 3.0 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8 --------------030805000207060001050503 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Concerned about your lonely Friday nights? Worry no more! http://xepokdr.com/ --------------030805000207060001050503 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Concerned about your lonely Friday nights? Worry no more! http://xepokdr.com/
--------------030805000207060001050503-- From FranciscrackNicholas@economist.com Tue Dec 25 12:02:39 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7DAt-0004mQ-Nd; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 12:02:39 -0500 Received: from xdsl-81-173-160-245.netcologne.de ([81.173.160.245] helo=privat1) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7DAs-0002H9-0G; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 12:02:39 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host79669013.economist.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id LyPBKoJj78.916189.Oad.b1B.7998012811325 for ; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 18:02:35 -0100 Message-ID: From: "Robyn Dukes" To: Cc: , =20

Even if you have no erection problems = Viagra would=20 help you to make better sex more often and to bring unimaginable = plesure=20 to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for = action in=20 30 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking = this=20 medication were able to have perfect erection during 24 hours!

Package Quantity Price in your = local drugstore* Our = price

Learn
More
Now
10 tabs 20 doses $99.95 $34.49
30 tabs 60 doses $299.95 $88.50
60 tabs 120 doses $449.95 $141.02
90 tabs 180 doses $769.95 $176.40
180 tabs 360 doses $1299.95 $298.46

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Viagra gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_AB97_01C84717.F88EFF00-- From mlsna@arne-pelzer.de Tue Dec 25 12:13:52 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7DLk-0005ye-6n for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 12:13:52 -0500 Received: from [218.191.64.232] (helo=[218.191.64.232]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7DLj-0002ai-GL for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 12:13:52 -0500 Received: from tat ([169.103.90.55]:14463 "EHLO tat" smtp-auth: TLS-CIPHER: TLS-PEER-CN1: ) by [218.191.64.232] with ESMTP id S22CMAVICEDSHUYX (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Dec 2007 01:14:31 +0800 Message-ID: <000701c84719$88b38500$e840bfda@tat> From: "Pansy mlsna" To: Subject: gnuuerte Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 01:13:57 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0004_01C8475C.96D6C500" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Spam-Score: 3.9 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464 ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C8475C.96D6C500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1250" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Regards ccamp-archive best medicalindustry professionals recommend! http://smilecolony.com Pansy mlsna ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C8475C.96D6C500 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1250" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Regards ccamp-archive
best medicalindustry professionals=20 recommend!
http://smilecolony.com
Pansy mlsna
------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C8475C.96D6C500-- From DurdaCiolfi@ortalekelley.com Tue Dec 25 16:29:47 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7HLO-0003HU-T9 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 16:29:46 -0500 Received: from [201.9.105.37] (helo=201009105037.user.veloxzone.com.br) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7HLN-0000PF-Nt for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 16:29:46 -0500 Received: from cliente-98f79cd ([148.183.135.27]:2768 "EHLO cliente-98f79cd" smtp-auth: TLS-CIPHER: TLS-PEER-CN1: ) by 201009105037.user.veloxzone.com.br with ESMTP id S22ESGWKXKWPLMKH (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Dec 2007 18:30:02 -0300 Message-ID: <000b01c8473d$443e9b70$256909c9@cliente98f79cd> From: "Durda Ciolfi" To: Subject: aalit{{s Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 18:29:44 -0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0006_01C84724.1EF16370" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Spam-Score: 2.1 (++) X-Scan-Signature: e5ba305d0e64821bf3d8bc5d3bb07228 ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C84724.1EF16370 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable compliments ccamp-archive Be more respected and adored! http://classgeneral.com Durda Ciolfi ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C84724.1EF16370 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
compliments ccamp-archive
Be more respected and adored!
http://classgeneral.com
Durda Ciolfi
------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C84724.1EF16370-- From carey.dickinson_vq@umusic.com Tue Dec 25 18:09:56 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7IuK-0005tB-4o; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 18:09:56 -0500 Received: from c-24-1-28-31.hsd1.il.comcast.net ([24.1.28.31] helo=vispa.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7IuJ-0002z4-OW; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 18:09:56 -0500 From: "Carey Dickinson" Reply-To: "Carey Dickinson" Sender: Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 15:59:00 -0700 X-Sender: In-Reply-To: <581701c844a3$6ce04064$0833c68b@yv6jp92> Subject: Year End Offer(85% Off): Codeine, Phentermim available and many other pills f03xjb2oj7fv4aaw7j Message-ID: <1198623540.9256@umusic.com> To: iad@ietf.org Bcc: mbeaulie@ietf.org, ieprep@ietf.org, hubmib-bounces@ietf.org, ccamp-archive@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: 2.2 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 856eb5f76e7a34990d1d457d8e8e5b7f One Year Once BIG SALES: Viagr Cia|i Phetermim Codeine Ambien Xana Valiu & all Year End Offer(85% Off), Order today http://bacevepu32436.googlepages.com/index.html From DesmondadirondackEaton@adobe.com Tue Dec 25 21:57:30 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7MSY-0006FP-NF; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 21:57:30 -0500 Received: from c-69-139-13-101.hsd1.pa.comcast.net ([69.139.13.101] helo=babydell.hsd1.pa.comcast.net) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7MSY-0007Dr-D5; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 21:57:30 -0500 Received: from blot by adobe.com with SMTP id BbfA2vuDB5 for ; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 21:57:09 +0500 From: "Nolan Harrell" To: Subject: Hey, start seeing dollars pouring in. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 2.1 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 7bac9cb154eb5790ae3b2913587a40de Visit and start seeing the dollars coming. Get your bonus and walk the red carpet to winnings and fun. Get $2400 you download our casino. Come see what it means to be a VIP. http://greatgamecasino.net/ From yxpvrod@boelsconsulting.com Wed Dec 26 02:04:33 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7QJd-0005Qm-Lq for ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 02:04:33 -0500 Received: from admk201.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl ([79.185.40.201] helo=renai-6i8q9435s) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7QJY-0003fW-7Q for ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 02:04:29 -0500 Received: from [79.185.40.201] by mx1.pins-web.net; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 08:04:28 +0100 Message-ID: <01c84795$efdd0e00$c928b94f@yxpvrod> From: "Lelia Orr" To: Subject: Re: Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 08:04:28 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0007_01C84795.EFDD0E00" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 6d95a152022472c7d6cdf886a0424dc6 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C84795.EFDD0E00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Even if you have no erection problems Cialis would help you to make bette= r sex more often and to bring unimaginable plesure to her. Just disolve h= alf a pill under your tongue and get ready for action in 15 minutes! The = tests showed that the majority of men after taking this medication were a= ble to have perfect erection during 36 hours!PackagePrice in your local d= rugstore*Our priceLearn More Now10 tabs$95.95$44.0030 tabs$349.95$117.0060 tabs$549.95$204.0090 tabs$7= 89.95$261.00When you are young and stressed up… When you are aged and never give up... Cialis gives you confidence in any chance, every time. ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C84795.EFDD0E00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Even if you have no erection problems Ciali= s would help you to make better sex more often and to bring unimaginable p= lesure to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for acti= on in 15 minutes! The tests showed that the majority of men after taking this medication were able to have perfect erection during 36 hours!

Package Price in your loca= l drugstore* Our price

Learn
More
Now

<= /td>
10 tabs $95.95 $44.00
30 tabs $349.95 $117.00
60 tabs $549.95 $204.00
90 tabs $789.95 $261.00

When you are young and stressed up…<= br> When you are aged and never give up...
Cialis gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C84795.EFDD0E00-- From ter.eod@equityoffice.com Wed Dec 26 02:06:14 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7QLE-0007Ed-4C; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 02:06:14 -0500 Received: from admk201.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl ([79.185.40.201] helo=renai-6i8q9435s) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7QLC-0003hh-UE; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 02:06:11 -0500 Received: from [79.185.40.201] by equityoffice.com.s7a2.psmtp.com; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 08:06:11 +0100 Message-ID: <01c84796$2d419b80$c928b94f@ter.eod> From: "Tracey Donovan" To: Subject: Re: Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 08:06:11 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0007_01C84796.2D419B80" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.3790.1830 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.1830 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 6d95a152022472c7d6cdf886a0424dc6 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C84796.2D419B80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Even if you have no erection problems Cialis would help you to make bette= r sex more often and to bring unimaginable plesure to her. Just disolve h= alf a pill under your tongue and get ready for action in 15 minutes! The = tests showed that the majority of men after taking this medication were a= ble to have perfect erection during 36 hours!PackagePrice in your local d= rugstore*Our priceLearn More Now10 tabs$95.95$44.0030 tabs$349.95$117.0060 tabs$549.95$204.0090 tabs$7= 89.95$261.00When you are young and stressed up… When you are aged and never give up... Cialis gives you confidence in any chance, every time. ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C84796.2D419B80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Even if you have no erection problems Ciali= s would help you to make better sex more often and to bring unimaginable p= lesure to her. Just disolve half a pill under your tongue and get ready for acti= on in 15 minutes! The tests showed that the majority of men after taking this medication were able to have perfect erection during 36 hours!

Package Price in your loca= l drugstore* Our price

Learn
More
Now

<= /td>
10 tabs $95.95 $44.00
30 tabs $349.95 $117.00
60 tabs $549.95 $204.00
90 tabs $789.95 $261.00

When you are young and stressed up…<= br> When you are aged and never give up...
Cialis gives you confidence in any chance, every time.

------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C84796.2D419B80-- From EtheldocileMaloney@secondnaturerecordings.com Wed Dec 26 02:29:32 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7Qho-0003IC-9F; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 02:29:32 -0500 Received: from ppp-58.9.111.49.revip2.asianet.co.th ([58.9.111.49] helo=home38fe26ddf8) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7Qhn-00046Q-Iy; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 02:29:32 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host43505867.secondnaturerecordings.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id VdcdQ51f34.146034.6zO.bxs.8365060297497 for ; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 14:29:10 -0700 Message-ID: <4c81101c84791$090bafd0$2301a8c0@home38fe26ddf8> From: "Eva Heard" To: Cc: , =20

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Even if you have no erection problems Viagra would help you to make = better=20 sex more often.
Learn More Now

------=_NextPart_000_4C80D_01C84791.090BAFD0-- From Garrisonpdj@watervliethousing.org Wed Dec 26 02:47:11 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7Qyt-00024e-QF for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 02:47:11 -0500 Received: from [217.150.38.163] (helo=[217.150.38.163]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7Qys-0004Ru-T3 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 02:47:11 -0500 Received: from lena_home ([137.151.72.108] helo=lena_home) by [217.150.38.163] ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1jPMHY-000BTT-GP for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 12:47:50 +0500 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 12:47:11 +0500 To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org From: "Doo Garrison" Subject: roundlin Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 2.1 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 8ac499381112328dd60aea5b1ff596ea Hi ccamp-archive Luck favours only real men! http://tookocean.com Doo Garrison From AmaliapneumococcusHawk@dillonaero.com Wed Dec 26 09:01:25 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7Wp2-0002t6-St; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 09:01:24 -0500 Received: from host86-145-99-11.range86-145.btcentralplus.com ([86.145.99.11] helo=charliepc.home) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7Wp2-0004Ob-FJ; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 09:01:24 -0500 Received: from stowaway by dillonaero.com with SMTP id EnszFDB8fU for ; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 14:00:26 +0000 From: "Lessie Mayberry" To: Subject: Win $$$ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 3.3 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 7bac9cb154eb5790ae3b2913587a40de Play your favorite games and get $2400 welcome bonus. USA players too! Download and GO! USA players too! Download and GO! Download our casino in 20 seconds to get $2400 richer when you join. http://greatluxgaming.com/ From washingtonmakeup.com@zobh.com Wed Dec 26 12:03:33 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7ZfJ-0000Rx-PR for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 12:03:33 -0500 Received: from [88.229.115.176] (helo=xrvkut) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7ZfH-0008Pw-WF for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 12:03:33 -0500 Message-ID: <000301c847e1$22602880$0100007f@tgxnl> From: "Patrick Price" To: Subject: Avoid enhancement pills Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 20:03:36 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0006_01C847E1.22602880" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2905 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962 X-Spam-Score: 4.8 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 2a9ffb6f997442a3b543bcdaf483b990 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C847E1.22602880 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_001_0039_01C847E1.22602880" ------=_NextPart_001_0039_01C847E1.22602880 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Info on picture or here: http://www.mauskyl.net/ ----- Everyone nodded. Judith turned She lifted her hair back over His eyes widened in surprise. Yes, Judith answered. And than ------=_NextPart_001_0039_01C847E1.22602880 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello

------=_NextPart_001_0039_01C847E1.22602880-- ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C847E1.22602880 Content-Type: image/jpg; name="img42.jpg" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: /9j/4AAQSkZJRgABAgAAZABkAAD/7AARRHVja3kAAQAEAAAABgAA/+4AIUFkb2JlAGTAAAAAAQMA EAMCAwYAAAj4AAASsgAAKY//2wCEABcUFB8WHzIdHTI/LycvPzowLy8wOkVCQkJCQkVFRUVFRUVF RUVFRUVFRUVFRUVFRUVFRUVFRUVFRUVFRUVFRUUBGB8fKCMoMB4eMEQwKDBERUQ2NkRFRUVFQkVF RUVFRUVFRUVFRUVFRUVFRUVFRUVFRUVFRUVFRUVFRUVFRUVFRf/CABEIAMICdQMBIgACEQEDEQH/ xADRAAEAAwEBAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAgMEAQUGAQEBAQEBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQIDBBAAAwACAgEC BQQCAwEBAAAAAQIDAAQREhMQFDBAUCEFIDEiI2AzQTIVNAYRAAEDAgMECAQDBQgCAwAAAAEAEQIh MUESA1FhcSLwgZGhsdEyExAgwUIwQOHxUmJyglBgkqKy0iMzwgTigyQSAAECAwUEBgkDBQAAAAAA AAEAESExAkFRYYESEHGh0TBQ8JGxUiBAweHxIjJCgmBionBykgMT/9oADAMBAAIRAxEAAAD3B6cg AAAAAAAAAAAAAGbx+W/oXj+x0wFHm3GxnmWqYmhnvOssjQzQNjBeaGWwuVcLlAvU1GtnvOgAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAACCMMbtG8BQjmycq5dLqOy57v+Z9fwca877D4r6P0eb3R2mCzWMdmgY2wedumPPs2 DHX6Ay22jHLUM9ewY2wYKvUHn7+gAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACNd3fH6Kpwz8ul066tXX3JZ242R5Hh2 7nuw89+n3Fyy35L2fD68qfZ8bV28/wBwPRkAAAAAAAAcMmjFuPMv7YVLaTRDuQ9KlSSlyBpgzm7N pyGjsIk+0SOWc0HQADHm7EO51JDssnG8dc7QWCONS5THj10953z9YeT6Hj56epbRfLDtlFl6EU5P li4vO93OfF9vo9Pi5fV9Hqe509Ga54Xn9W9invnqhTXLt5nt1hZ512Ouuuqu52sM61stZuZbLmbJ 3HTawwT0WdvFs/N251JkTW5ku3ytHTmAAAAAAjJLTy/nPVMdXMbyTuhw687XzO7lcpZORlj3PsLY zouMfm6811tvxbs6l1OOSrmkuTrTsfNprnz/AKvjd/No+o+Z+p7cvRHaZb5sdKYaUZY7E1lusazm r2s6zNKzBPYzqnF6cFo09b5ZdQYLNbHTNbY3jHdcly90jLLQORm6cgAAAAAAiPa++XvOvl+bGUWd SRE1Pc6t5DsJJ1CuznbmHr89Nepm54a2N4LtLG6ar5415evVDePmvK+65l4f0B6OIaAAAAAAAAAZ s3dJm1VRJ1WwLJ09NEI9OSp6Ls40ZZ9JTy7DNdCBozbKCjbn1EgAAAAAK7EtXbERSTQayFgAAAAA AAHO+LvNfMUT0OYhu5mznpMHD0GHhvYRuY4m5j0k44Rtn5Ow1AAAAAAAAAAAAAI1y3IQylCrdm02 Z9xml2ccr0YjQ2xTBKPor5nd2YjDdTVNezMVxxXZt1tVN16DPf059GohMUw0imOgZ52inl4yT0DK 1CiVoz17BRZMYdFwzzt4dAAOHTh0AAABzoAQEwOdzStN2XhadubMt2ryYptu8wvo9wj1M+HibrPM mvoVZYJ6Wani+pXimd2+dA9Lx/QrSm7z9zd/aopvUX9+YUAAAAAAAA50edOVxRDR0itqKuXTMqyw hRriW49+Yjzmgzr5GWF9hkusGe6UzzW0agHIc7PFLPzqc4q7G7Sqv0panlWeiPL76Y8uz0B5vPT4 eRL1uHkvXHkw9mJ5EvVJ43PaqlwtGk7M6ZFdWPNuNioWqKjYySNKiZYx5D12SwvebtLWSRpZbixV wuZpF7PaTZrC1l1BTjPSov8AKPU75foFgAAAAK69FHPVNfocTzu7LiMjcCgAAAAAAAAAAEJjHHcM 8NYyNYw3aBklpGGesY2wZWoU1axjnpGSO0Y2wYNNwxy1DP28UZ94qx+iMWuQAAAAAhLqAoAAAAB5 np5ePoyz0c4989WucuLm+pct2hZm5ejZ5HqZ+vHPK/uOlco36zLPZVc9ovY6zzaVxbVbm6c+z4xu 2E4b51yjZjpCi6Wdw7yyyu2E9Z7m1wTDfNz7bM84d/LRJ3j6JW1W9ONUJ8x0otnGas0V2ejyBvAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH/2gAIAQIAAQUA+P5FwEH6D5F9SQAKglnL Zx91P3+fd+2HFoy4LY7FjnOJzyPt8wTxnkXnyLz2GAg+hYDGqOP1D7YDzg9BQ55FzyDO3Kin2L55 Vw0UYHBJc8moA7jmdOwNCGDgn9ZHI6KMMlwzOcMucn9HB/TwcQEBP3wKAOgzxjAgA8Y46DPEvDIW IXjAvB8S8dRyqBcKA4EAPwD2YcHgBsIb9E15OFQcMlOGIwRONLOrAgcfPcDOi5+30IkDOwzvnY52 OdjnY52Odjnc52OcnAxGA8/NE8Z+/wBHf1AJzpnTOmdM6Z0zpnTOudcCn5phznX7BfptFY54348b k+N+BNwfG3FVdsCP2HlOOX7sKnGWhw9+P7eD36/24RQ5/bwPJjKS4RhjdiAKjF8nT+3AHGIOF+m/ /9oACAEDAAEFAPjlSPoXQ+oBOGZACcYT/H6AqcYOeWQHDLFXqM4yhHHzH750PHQ8cHCOPQKTizPO D7fpP3wjg+hkM8LDPEeCnDNL7ieeFuRFjhmwUSBVYknxnisuhEgVMyB+sHjOxwUbA4z+LZwPQ4M5 H6BnIGUIJ9C5J8hw1Y4XJPlIPkPHmblKBQzlsLEjzPyXJDUZsFGGGhK/AHCnkcnrnIz75wcPOO3A zk4KMMFThqMWnGfxPz/Jzs30TjOM4zjOPTj049eoOEcfOfv8MHDxx8yPTjOc5znOc5znOc5znOc5 zn5oZznP02TKM8swfLMDzT5NUI8qcxdEBpPofCMQT8atBcRpLiifb+nkePt/TwGioPg5bw4jqJmq HFCAkxIbxd/6MLTOOeW+m//aAAgBAQABBQD/AC3Z8/FPyOxrvrfmlo3qiUtTWuQsdtLG1liq7KHI 7aWI20aaMHVd1GxdtCk9xKsPyEjg2z59uplOe0plDZS+WusRPZm6DaQz90uHYUMu/Ji+2iMjB1+n k8Zr0amEDj8rwxViD+Ot54ent7o6aYE4arq+2JlJaxecNV1cadQs1KIdFgfZf0pr18vsn8R13Frz NZnVd46+u6PswNcTUPQ6zvGuvWi+3omR13tPYmtKKoUfRWJAnRyQQf0luM5GCoV0r2ywJTTsHl+W oVoGz/8AP15X667FQaUGSstCwzt1wVGcg+jk4AMYcZrMlHVOrebrltlEG5c3rn4OnXY+TJAB/ISG Xp4kFu0xtnz622aUjsLOU9udCu9NzWgks92dGhXhl3puRsKae8n2qeEnsrKcNhbil1m1dlZlthFF H86ajO0/kx98GXkKqbsyj+eMCudsm5IenXAecY918XBSzrlLlhTb1wNl5u//ADpV8Wx8m6h1bTqU opdG1HaJ13Fpa7zr7J/F7cmsoMX3f9Mtd3wahODVqTODTr7BlNFLoNRwIRab7GsbNfULuddmn4ae JOQvyTfsPRm4zapw0H5DffCv21z9nQNgUKB/2ogbHZlzcNVQH0/51ZNWq88Z554rq49Z1WoxnVB5 54CCMWyM36mqilaI59SeBOq1GNVFK0Rz8helHov8B25ztgcZ3GdxgIP6OcLZVmIh2ODD9so2O/kf X+yc4OMIKEUBwvziLjffCoIpPuu3Hwvk07t+N011X9FYLtKTNl2z2FqG0LNQ69/6Y2euX/1xf+it GgfM62n/APU21RUvstOZ2KIabNFR9jh9a/nTcPFKBrVbaoqbzF5Vs0QHotNNnWMKGs9w8UZhe1rv F5s7H4zgkKrskkeb9XXCSc5GA52wPnbnPvnGcZU8ZD9hjnjNmhVZgczWnCsTnJGA854wcCqM44zn CwGBgc/Jx7zHHJcvn4Tg6nokaC1ZiqSWiqkXF4RebR16TnPW60srMkUrKba9Wx4ubpFxcajhLa70 leoknV9VBNu6g8Xi9HHPA1HCV1mpG0WsF8hyOu85a02lO8Xo9YuWeDWOtOsww7BZhT8bkH055wyU 4Y8YyMAr9SGY5w5zq2EsMehJkvVcocfyO1FKGGyFIcNgIzkDC5OKePR8ruIp/wDUWObn5daqW5zT cJT8NMz1fkCAQskU/Oghyn8QKcmXfAvXPvnQnPHznQjOpzrhXCgOBeMb7Yq8n0bWk+DRkuDXK50o cedxicgFwMDGhpoCdLJJhs/gHB9nYNofhOPlveT7U2/7tXZDNLZWhfcXquz5IDZVB7pOkrLUW2ki zbaLlNqaD/0JcPsome5n412fLdd1GzasYzjspOQ20M47C2ytvHT3LU14kmfocRyrWBdwhBZEQcnO Wz75yRhuoPlBzvnbO+A4/wB8/b4BAONJWxVC+jyWmGY6gP8AL+wZSsWW0tQiUNVptLWaYXVoI11G Za6fZNaJljRZrX1C7nVY4dRyK6Zce0LSTXp5IyV6bEzWdNZmQajeOalEOsxomvVJTBVfhkc4YzOe CeeFBnQYFI+V7qD6MwUAggOrHA6sfh+RefIn1okAG48ltlkc7beNtg0idhlGkSX2Nh0eFfHg2qgv uVBruMpXdbwy3C4Tap0htOzrtu0X22XKMUQblAtCPKv/AFTZL1+dpZJYNueLZKHkZR+gE7HBOmOW VlnTHR1DOUP8yGFgJuzgsBi2Rm7ZW3QRPkDYrugWvKg8/pogovtZ9X1EdKa6UUaiCdNRKLKCRN9Z L4mrNAujNCdRCK63YT1FWS64AWCrOOokT/58sbWRxVSyQ0VAOupYaiACCh/mXdUAer4IbJIeCZo2 kq+71jiW15XG5r5tbMaSjuyZG2kXNqyOMZ1TN203XE/eDCVEslM3ZhoymlE3NPuos82jZuHK2Ldh guq4rBh8z3Un9BIAVgwxmCgEEfrV1cevlTj1Zgg7umGG0xeTUHKTXyLOx2euWqi2ZorlWk003VmD cZtlaqmtB1GrrLlNaNVhHXsntseMZWfT13z2QXHlPWbXnCY2YjYSiNF0ZXYSoc5SQU9SPv8AKuwR W3KhK7VFo223j1yx2Nq5iDdvKdtwG2qpNdpqYuwZxtsURqXas4f6/fPj7FfL73+mW4XCbVOg2qg6 Zp5Y7AlBNp8TcoSmyXr4z4PXZZnMdWcMfYF2epfCyoX2FDijMGdkbx0XD3ILuMFCAdkqRcDPeLwN ued14XZXGt2M7FR5xhue4dVf344tsSsAc12VkdaKFmJZqsWT5QgEH8fI4ddSx1EM5aqRasVqK6c6 4NNAtI9px1OuHUQzrqpUDTQKihF9lLu+p5be2n411wAsFWa6M0K6qLRdRAk9RJqNRABBQ/sk6eun MM25bthoORRqFdJjnjXjyg49kLGyKVqy41OxNWbPI3UVoVFpjPNMAmRIEWK+DOYDEEcaCElJoQkj niiMdJoFb+TVLtySZoEX6I+3JCrBh8Jj1EGMNM/wHCueXOH7OFFcnprwqKg4HwOAPTgH1AAzouGa nPGmdFymrNx7BeZxWY9bEicNh/HLZE4RuthW6yPuk6X2wETcUSO7PrHaSzVsshXcAmdrhW3JyFNq aA7/APYbqH1XZqblTNNavCSstRW6yPuZ+Oe4lWXZRwm2jtWqyWe4lWldanYs6Uy0BbPx/IfNqYUz PTWiSZ/BupedWJiYs+VXw41GIjJnKIEHzVFLodMtE6jePWgZZs6pqy67rP2zeN9Wjx2YGuQ16JTa 1/MBqN4312bL6rs51CMvru9H1i9YzdGtqm9J6hk+rAxGzqmre0LSTXr5Z63iOrIF9mHnRNevlhrG T3i1HVqtXZnSizlfXEPJ1bTtiajTnMFV+Fr9xJVChkDYmuin/CqAsAAB8WDicQ6nV2eQpp5NSCgO jtKxIK0Dd1qK7Epe8yqB4Yb/ANu3QtbUu7U9+vam2Ue9fEibvZn3erW2nY02iuPUy2I0FUXZ7Yd0 BLbQkYWFlbY4pTeCNTb6MN1TJaGmz79e1dwzdd4MybIpTan5E1S2w7B5sVCbOHZHllQTaW+HyG4K tewis9vsE3uxlXxE7BsNNSsvm66Yo41AK+zVnOkMXW6tPWCFdEKi63DjUC1bS/k2iPHVDRPYS6pq lXTV6U9jwVh1ruKWlHUx9LszaXKU1e5bW5eEvEjaRLHU5nTUD5GRkra/NKaIdvbDyLpASnqFH9gv Ztblxp8Aaw8t4+ZRrKtBor0pqM5jNpq+sKUbSLZPS6iOqZNeIss9TqBp8DwCQhr/AMYS8Sf4z//a AAgBAgIGPwDrGe1ymTCXUTWbMFEJ9rn1l0yZTUNkSmp6ON5Bwa1cPahdHgtQWqqTDig3mY9yOEVu +C02oi4iG/kiRYHTdooPMh0acQGvfktNvQMdk18pdXKfRR2kXzzQwW5+M0QLUzlu3JPi+abBk77s O2Wwm9NgyfvQawMjitVvQujBQdRB9DVYNktkFEp6Uxj6/JS/o5Hq0GmcR3pt1OQ5qkkSYPuNi/y4 g+MF+QfJoojTGLl5oabI5rX+7CTdgmMIzhKPuxTUSh4ojulePYtxDSuPtVLT+6V3NZC7NU32y+CO /C/lmqdUoPK9Z4Y+7FB7xddHihUBCDxn8FK0ERkHkhpgXiEAJRuvKL/VZL2Ie6/lchRvcZnxggMB 1d//2gAIAQMCBj8A6d+pWCdPaj1DjsxUNsUw9adOpKOyCc9A22FoBGJNijc/FkR9w0/yQpqWimbn h4I6vLqHeyAvLZqyMu51qMuclTVJwS9gbmgDByzp7I5tNFvpBZCqMQSTYG5rVYegfbGCv6OG0VSI ZspIy+aaMot/GSFRsktTBzHx5pv26ck9xfOSZrY44YcVHsEKfLJA3F81psEsEXtLoNZDvvWiDeG7 ogrFAj0GtPoRUExUIdQT6vh1S/6xNNcAWPctT31S+42ZTVQpP1Elt9Mjncn/ALMwCCe6Ka3SQDiX h4IHXBw1LfT2wKJr+6GVq/53UwMZv2PApxGEvmnCfHBGr/ZNzfcG7FUm22flOU7lvpIM7xwb3qtz D7Z38lg9V/49pqryx0znZihuN8253QVemZ1ATtEOxioSbGbjjN7EdNxac3h3hGkn5otCWH5cE2qw glpkhtSIqLhixjNE1RMPNJg+CDfRaz+2KPv8tmd6NdsGOVNmEVURaT1d/9oACAEBAQY/AP72/wDE QONUcxEn+0/RZdWOXeLfJMCZiInftO9Sjqn/AK6GXToVlDg71mk7O1FJ6ZLusocHejqsWBbp2oSF iHQYHmOUd2/ejqVABaqEIu5WPYjAvlfKBS9vNPGhJYL3JYUO87kctxgU8uxGbsBd17hcC1ceChQ8 9lKFXiMxQFQ+3BSiQXiHPd5oSFiH/tGUpjKAWHn8HCBUZ3Nj1fGUtOQAkX6UUoSPNL1S6dChPUIO UNFk2oWD0O9Sz0lqFzu2dOpCeoQcoaLI6YkMpr0pRCJuAAiYkAA5od1+xe2/M+Z9/TzUdTUkCw89 y9tw+bN3cF7sSACz+XcjAUJXtzlzC2zgjqaheRpRCUS0olwpCZ5p1JC9uZDj0t9VAuM8ezpTYp6k yC8CO5RBl/x3bG5RjA88mEw2FC/cP2oAWFP7GoHTTjlVPlZVWQm9lmiHCpdOzEEiQ+oRgLfCekcD mHX/AG9QOdi9D9ayVjL92V+rb1fGtPiw+Ms3q+1O/UqoyRn8DH94flHNlj2Iz2IkzmJOH/zWqEYF 8r5QKXt5oxk7E8tqXWeRlIZmre3FFn5Q/UgAC5LIzNhsWUOCdvgtUzPLE44VKAALksvaDk4tYJqs 7Zvtfj07FI2oahQzEnM9Txxr5o5XptQgXMjgA/WsrEkBzlw4qJfllaWHWs8ZGEA7nb+n1wQM74cP yzGhFYyxBQMvUC0uP6/B1Vbvg4RjiqraFQMjGcmntZ0+mGjvQUZ727fyhibEMvbzDKDQdu5GIuQQ o6ThwX8fNe7EgAs/l3KU3GWRdunFe24fNm7uCnM+mUcu/BQAzNEvzhgLWupdXiFCU5PGIBjtwWoJ Gky4biSoGUgRA23U3IyiRklUg3RAEZDDNmfuRiLkELTDjkJJ7XU5FmkXHeokEBscengs8WL3En+i jpUjH7mfa9HR03BIpEthvQzVLV/L5RxPyN8lU0IoyxTn4xhEOSUHv8PVHtCeJBG75HgXFvg8iAN6 9Ue0Jxb4GAPMLhj87GQB3lNGQJ3H5HTwLi3wYyAO8poyBO4/kRo6dMZS3IRkX3rlDlYrYr/PRULL mLn5CQh8Xw+DD41RGCOw/ARFHIHao6kJe5meFAwjtLuXs3xmS9sAT+7sU9cgxgRY0c8OPioOxE8I 3jsf60ClpBmAd67u2+59ynEs8Sz9uHVtUtTKKG0Q2zpwUSDEg+oC479ql/KfBRgYvGRyk4Vl2/qt PTgxB5a9WP6IaUmaQemF+225T/l/2ozIES9ISBc23jwUdSIHM1DvD7lLPFxEOCH7P13WUZjKc2DH zrsXtvEEB5Sl4N+qzMxsVpHf9QoSgCMprIhqeO1GZAiXpCQLm28eCjLAsW6jj+iALSnItFg31QgQ 8SPUAQ3eVKUWYEmvC2Ha/UhM0JWkd/1Cjkpk9Rt1bdx4oZm9s/c369NizFsh9O3p0pb8cgI6c2AH oIwV3pwW0JyCPwn+Ja5p8ORjxTSDH42TD5TNrFPKyywGUXYKPGXj8TqlmIZnO7duRgcUIyYNiN3V 08JapZiGvw3blORbmrfju3owcAkggjq8ute4wjRssTfuHSqMYs5DV6FCAESQ9XP+1QJIJiSTW9X2 KOqGYBr8d29S1SzENfhu3KUCxMj68fDdtUdMM4Z67KbFmlQmlK1Qm2mWscS/TsQ1ogAyjzRk/TuX Nfp06MoyDNEvU3tuVbqUCxMj68fDdtUdNwJRbhSiBpGcS8cfLwK5mDbDfuoO3zlplnLtXbTYhCTO NijIM0S9Te25DU02jP7th6cPBH3GytygSN9tv2bCssyCBboyY91E4frkT4n8ehHxqFQqzpiGO9UC t8LfADH4k5S2FE7EcUxT/OYu5F2TzjIA4sjDSBrifhnlYAuoZgxLy7T+RY2TiIB3D88YtRqHemIE WwTYI5mZ+VU+FSqlX+fN8eaA7FyuOEivU/FVA7VyxB60MwY/DKLqJiHB9S9vVtKgey//ADnMNhWQ wObYyGp/7HH2/Py/LNVnbN9r8enYjmMhGNhHE79ylLUkXZ/4Wp39LrKxBIcZseCnkc5R6sHspOSJ RZ5DecKhRiXJMcz9XG9EJ15qAYlEi4oQbhZZPZ0GBLjNTAb1EmolYhPXgyDPIyqBG7L3Hp3vs49L KOQnKxcdqDA8xyju3704uaBZpGRLtWpejtuR1A7C4xRyvRu9ahzFxGgwFt/0UqnPFnNrncok3YeH yBszbwiQKFB7Lk+ViQFf5WH4NVVMPg0g4WWNNiDs+P5cgCMhhmzP3KWrRiG8PJS0pm5dx1eSEiI0 xBk/kp6bjJIFtvTpRHSJFWy7quo5SBKMcp4MoxjeO2x270XEQ7el/qo6tGAbx81nixe4k/0WnYZC 5Z9r0WoHHOQR2uoEMTECJBdu6qMC0S+YZXbvUdTUkCQ4PegYV04nN1lqdTP4owFzt4qGUtODNsw8 lMEgzmQTsuhE3AAU5uGlHL4IwzB/tbCta3qgJVIAf8SqrEdi9IVPH4XP5XK4c4fFyWG9OLIgEEi/ wIBBIv8AiEOHFTVCorat/wC2nNkdZ+bNQfw9GCEYsQYmXcfJQIAM5kgbLqYnEZokAjC/FQ09OIMj EHdbitQkMXt2oaemHka1WrOQqCKdZUBKIAmb7qb1NohoFn622qAiBzASLn60R1JAO+UNwUwWJiDI EO3fVHUnEZWwxLshDUAGYPFlLVYOC3h5qAYDMASTbgjIXAJUdSURkNHHXvWqGD5DWuwdXctD+Y/6 gjpkAAbbnePLr/Pc8gOP0VyBtMZAdrJoHN/Lbtt3q47fJ0HB5iIg4ObdppZWA7T45fBekdqEC2Y2 ruJ+h81WI7U8Q56/oChGQ5pOwGLXvlTiJFfu/TMe5UaR2ZZjv5m6x2JyGHW/A8rOLXNfhkB5tmK9 Mv8ADLyTfcbAhn6injQNTjw2C3QIGZyxLGMq7LNge17IubNSe92bE28dizENY9RxVPlMSSAdiy5R ZnYP+1RgSeWxxQgRQW3I6Ydjc4oRL8oYHFEwxaiGa4xCkAKSuECCXBdTDnnLntdRyiJyhud+q31X tzq9Tx3IgykQQ1SvbvHeswcnejeu+yiJOREMzqQFyCFGWoOYXGClOryGUqAc8hcdrr3KmWDm3D80 8i3TDadyfT0y22fJ3Hm7lU6cR/VL/aj7muJHECUR4c3ejmlp6cwebUcc/wDEJGnG7Woq60T/APYP oQF/xzh7UwTIZo5RMEMdxkDajs6pqQ/xDzU4R1IZjGTcwu1FEynHMwzDMLsrSO+MJEdoDLUyyGeM dOUQ9RIEkUuML7W+DyIHFQlCUTKM4GhBxynuPwlx/wDELVhItESzxfZIOTwzP10XJIHgQVKTc0QZ ROyQDjvwsbGijNgHANN4T6ZOaP2kkvuqeV9oxQEhIFnyn1De33DfXio6gPNEEAEUbqqNr36qIFog uwkJGTUOEfu2Pv3AmFWHpGQlwHEQT9u0RxHFEuMpkREuK7TgG3pxUfmsrhxh8rmycFxu+DksN6cW /AeJBG75M2YNZ3+QyNgHKhrZc2pPl0tK2UG8pXq1z9r5cSS/vAbo6Y+siVn1pe9px+3Lljvk1RNg 7Py8ShEAZbqUjEZcsa05KkW2E3KpbuUNWQBjIGFRbHN3sdgq+CaUIA4OIqQERE5ZMWFKHchCUTHL QmPo3VAtKvBmKqmEROWaNNrVZ8AzjiQMUJQMxA/aJyAG0NhW42pxpxP8wfxRhGMYk2kIxpj1jaMQ hqaYOmTcQmY5S1iLd1br/s1ADskO8s+CBnHPDLF5ahzNIyIBL7Swp6b2tzacabAx7RVNGeqI4Rz0 4WKjp6mpqe0QcozSo2Why3BfdlZsUfZEQ9zE1PE37VlLgisZC4PTCyMMxBFQRR9parMaEf1Yoz1W BDB8P5h/FgGwcKJjAxDHmE2kf5ixIDCgvwZF9OMJBgBHLV2AD0/YDWiBMg52Sff0P5YyNgHXuZRl Joe3epQgAREP4KBiOedBsuykZhpZaj/CgwvibBR06NIP42WoWHIQB2ss8ogPly9lVOMgGECaeYKg IRGaRIAwvxUdOABmQ52LUEgBlI8VH+UeCz5f+N239P2OpaenEFh5b17jcz5dz+XTepgsTEGQIdu+ qOpOIythiXZQEogCZvupvUqBiefdf68UZCIBzMAH2bypxmAJxBluUM0RlkW72R0yAANtzvHl1pqe v94bOPyR0NI88z2R+6XVsxwWYVm1dSVZHidm6yoWgKxbNz7y32Ph996xbMBUPSjd27puQysJNzHd s8lKRLEZRjVr+LV44L/jEmG6w2DpTBOYl5CmZrC4cm2LKkN7PG3iRs2CiYwPNS4x2VRBEhKNzHuc PUF7IARl/SOXsoE5BoLMXq1SfLijIOC7ktKvGl9krsw3Kp7X8ldAgkSYWuRxxAuAdjIvIEbQDHuQ k9AGyn7gbvuF2vg2CDkmjSqTwlF8No4ddCoEGozDtH6dqJAykVjKNHdiYyapD7XC5qHEX7007YSx HBZSAJuNnSpx6rrMZzYepjjfiOq5xd1bNO0JSrlfAA8xltkQG2CLrLRmqQGr4niU5vmn/ql+VY2W PapTq8hlKGmXYWOKzRd2ZASdtxvxQdwwamxSiHaTdy9sAFmbNu4KRmwzDK0bN14oaZdhY4oCTuKP ipRDtJu5CIsAyzt/TgpGY5SKEHGn6r22p3vt49LIgykQQ1SvbvHegQS4Lr3Q7o6dSCXqjEPzBicV AOeQuO117lTLBzbgvbcs+bpT5J6935I7hEsf8z9yOkLD17/4RtfHdTEqt/u47OjMNiywBMsa2HZQ dAueXVHz/wDipgRreBvQcrh99xsXth2N3/09vddZpyDimUVDbDtOO629NEctw702ttGNWAsKIARe OHN+h7HWYgg2EoGo4ilKl3JCLDlawmB1+ktwGKy5XD2z0O6kO1GBAMWZnr2tX9iecsxP71P8rfqo vlMRjlvuthxL7kZExDmxjm7GrWtbVpENUHKSB/DXHtbbiAHQFCcaMafdXw33LKxI3Vbhx2dDl+t+ qjKjuO9/LgXTSFf4Sa9VGVHLYVH1WLJ9P1A1G0bNxQlcHbbr6Nt2J5YWAk17umEWJ3/omG89tf7F MTKo4pwXG78Mk4KJkWlIEjjMk/V1R6uXx4k4nbtTzJEDUN6pf7RvLPhRM8dIfuwDl959PjxTS1ZG IwdiT/TgB2umgG3gkLnc7sxTRAA3fjME7BVA7FYdisEzNwA6FOCw2N+qa/H5JEXY+ClGZrlMoHHF RlqEkl+Jqnj2IAuZHCNShqVMSWO7ipHTdwRESwQnJzXKeLLPVnbissXs6BNzQAXKMoUk+Vjgd6EA ZXeZxw9JUQXLgHf171EmolYhAh8jVDDpsxXt1MsWFuK1ASSAadpTR9Uiw29PNSjM1gTmN0TF23i/ BAFzI4RqV7j0732celkIRdypGLkRDuyjEAvIOO/yWaVkIRdyiIuwxaihCNBIhz12+ABJA2DFSALw HQd3wk0CS7568TgylklzOCWwsok3YeH4Uoi5BC0dSIJiI1atWYfUdaeQAMvtldtpq7bqEk3AoS9X uS1encAmNOHnxQakB3ph+bMRcghDTJGaLsVAAgTgSRsujKReUi5QmGcUaTt3VR0xli5qzmnXipaT jL9njXp5IaZIJB7mZCUS0olwjqTILhvBAi8dtlKDRBk1jLA71pW5Gfu8kZ6ZAzBpOtMRNIFy/EFR 1IEAgN07UNQEADZc7j59SkZlwTy1tdPM8gFGv0/Rch5CGIlXup0dFzfAWCEwzijSdu6qMC0S+YZX bvUdTUkCw89ynOZGUgvGLs23xp2LOKwiGgdt/B2WV2Nwo6mpIFh57lKZIY/bG3H9FCQZolz3I0bT Hf0/QrLpkAH1OqEGIc5Rj3DxT6nqJtsRAm8d5KlGMueTVtZASqQA/wCH7YpF5cWJNtl/JNEMFW6f q/uXlGPgmH42pCRaQend4oQHqJYDfmdaeg4FBmPDs39iP8LR7CFD2STI+vudTn9ok0usmvV+mK1y LOP9RWnk9QgCOoFach+7/uR1NQm7ADBAaRMwJb6U+Hvu4EmA/hrh0qUIGJlEfbt39NikCCxOP23p 9MFbkdsz1/w3bpeiOmIGRGzq3IzZ2QjKJiJWJ6d6MYxMhG5HTvWnKIIBqwN627u9RiIkzkHy7FOQ BlTD+lCYo61Kf9e+9/JRm1ZOwfYWuhFnkasSA3XZZh1oaUQ5+7ciBEkRpKWxCMYmWYZg3kvcIauV t6gTExLGh/qXpOR2z9P2spQEScoenV2KIykCVH3/AFR0wLXNPDYqFjHmHUvdkfQGA6q9PJH/ANaM uWRDGljcdGfrWnEWEW/1fD2gHONuhWqYRJOa13qdgoiZRYRDvfqsshDEhxV/2LMepSzRMZRGbKVE GJAlR+l1rTZ2l9SpaYjXJm7QKd6iCGNb8T+czuwLZht717j0dxHftUp6nM9sG7CpCJaMmo2zr6Oo ziWMRlNL9OvDYpklxPDt81OAlSTYWYqE39EctuK90HbTiidORgDcD9oXtiTDNmrwZGILPR0zczeq t9rOozMnyjLbj5o6gkWNcqOSQA2GIl3lHVe4ZuzyUgA5pbiFGc5EsARE4HpgjKMjESuB07lGIkxg 7FtqjKMiJRpmupzf1xy24IQd2UiJkCTuFHSMqA1p0ZRYsYjLUPTgmJBrgAPBDViWP3b0SJECVZR2 qOoCwiMrdqOmS9cwKjqGRkQ9+lF6jkd8nT9rKc39cctuCgM3oL2vV9q90lzhboVldg7lDUiWYMRt owRiSTIl829RkJkGIEX+t00pGRe5Q1CbWFPHYpczZjmtxpfejGUjKJDN3vdA5gQP4AO+6ynqUs0j KUhlzFQGb0F7Xq+1akpPMTPpA3/qpGVDIZQ9xFmHXtQg7t/dr//Z ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C847E1.22602880-- From balkrish@btinternet.com Wed Dec 26 16:01:09 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7dNF-0000Zt-Q9 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 16:01:09 -0500 Received: from pd9e35048.dip.t-dialin.net ([217.227.80.72] helo=217.227.80.72) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7dNF-00063d-5n for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 16:01:09 -0500 Message-ID: <000801c84802$032a763b$36e989bf@fobflgqn> From: "harmon chip" To: Subject: Rolex Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 19:13:46 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0005_01C84802.032876CD" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 6cca30437e2d04f45110f2ff8dc1b1d5 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C84802.032876CD Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Prestige replicas =20 Most popular watches Alain = Silberstein•Chopard•Jaeger•LeCoutrePorsche•Design= =20 =20 Most popular TIFFANY & CO. JEWERLY Tiffany & CO Bracelets =20 Most popular PENS Louis Vuitton Ballpoint•St Dupont Roller =20 Click here =09 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C84802.032876CD Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Prestige
replicas

Most popular = watches

Alain = Silberstein•Chopard•Jaeger•LeCoutrePorsche•Design=

=20

Most popular TIFFANY & CO. = JEWERLY

Tiffany & CO Bracelets

Most popular PENS

Louis Vuitton = Ballpoint•St Dupont Roller
Click here =09
------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C84802.032876CD-- From akstcamzkoreamnsdgs@amzkorea.com Wed Dec 26 17:29:00 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7ekG-00005e-9U; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 17:29:00 -0500 Received: from [88.234.222.86] (helo=[88.234.222.86]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7ekE-0008Jo-Vt; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 17:28:59 -0500 Received: from [88.234.222.86] by smtp.amzkorea.com; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 00:35:46 +0200 From: "Willie Blue" To: Subject: Branded Shows Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 00:35:46 +0200 Message-ID: <01c84820$6b839d00$56deea58@akstcamzkoreamnsdgs> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4115 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1478 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Score: 4.4 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 68c8cc8a64a9d0402e43b8eee9fc4199 We have all kind of BIG branded Shoes for you to purchase them online. Now all branded shoes are one click away from you www.streetnstrut38.com 100% Genuine Quality and Discounted price. Some top brands Gucci, Prada, D&G, Versace, Chanel, Ugg Boots. Remeber We always SHIP things Free of cost. From DianehijinksCovington@dnforum.com Wed Dec 26 18:29:17 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7fgb-0004IS-RE; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 18:29:17 -0500 Received: from [201.228.170.176] (helo=user) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7fgb-00017k-DZ; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 18:29:17 -0500 Received: from wyoming by dnforum.com with SMTP id aHRJ8W2cus for ; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 18:29:12 +0500 From: "Janet Ibarra" To: Cc: , Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7jb5-0002Y9-Eu for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 22:39:51 -0500 Received: from [190.157.49.71] (helo=Dynamic-IP-1901574971.cable.net.co) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7jb4-00068g-Sk for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 22:39:51 -0500 Received: from personal ([155.187.12.70]:21922 "EHLO personal" smtp-auth: TLS-CIPHER: TLS-PEER-CN1: ) by Dynamic-IP-1901574971.cable.net.co with ESMTP id S22MZXJMQMHWQWMU (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Dec 2007 22:40:10 -0500 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 22:40:00 -0500 From: "dayna morara" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org Subject: tnegilid Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 3.5 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: bb8eae9af85e4fcfe76f325e38493bf4 Launch your chick into orgasmic ecstasy with your new huge dick! http://pwrutyes.com/ From ishikawa@edentalsavings.com Thu Dec 27 00:30:59 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7lKc-0005tp-GH; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 00:30:58 -0500 Received: from [85.185.90.162] (helo=[85.185.90.162]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7lKa-00086E-6k; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 00:30:57 -0500 Received: from [85.185.90.162] by edentalsavings.com.mail5.psmtp.com; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 09:00:00 +0330 Message-ID: <01c84866$dc4da800$a25ab955@ishikawa> From: "Pierce" To: Subject: Hi Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 09:00:00 +0330 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="windows-1250"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1158 X-Spam-Score: 3.9 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 08e48e05374109708c00c6208b534009 Hey you I read your profile on-line a few minutes ago and you seem intresting email me at Angie@GloryWayChurchx.info and I will reply with a Picture and Info about me right away I will stay online and wait for your email Talk to you soon From BrigittesmatterPrescott@quotationspage.com Thu Dec 27 02:09:59 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7msR-0005pQ-AW; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 02:09:59 -0500 Received: from [88.238.31.59] (helo=baskan) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7msQ-0001U8-F3; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 02:09:58 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host80839571.quotationspage.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id Hl786brD79.172246.enT.jjF.5554283938482 for ; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 09:09:52 -0200 Message-ID: From: "Janell Vogt" To: , =20

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Even if you have no erection problems Viagra would help you to make = better=20 sex more often.
Learn More Now

------=_NextPart_000_C3B5_01C84857.7BFAFCA0-- From PeteglossolaliaTownsend@worldtribune.com Thu Dec 27 05:32:44 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7q2e-0000Zd-F4; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 05:32:44 -0500 Received: from pc-60-182-83-200.cm.vtr.net ([200.83.182.60] helo=bfdfd9969bea477) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7q2e-0006ZD-4T; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 05:32:44 -0500 Received: from spectrometer by worldtribune.com with SMTP id Z3yzTY8xc9 for ; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 07:32:06 +0400 From: "Randolph Cannon" To: Cc: , Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7qKu-0007IM-OB; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 05:51:36 -0500 Received: from 241.red-81-33-138.dynamicip.rima-tde.net ([81.33.138.241] helo=user8b07ccdc8d) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7qKu-00077Y-7E; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 05:51:36 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host71236301.downloadsquad.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id uTK6fBd741.162001.mDm.2uy.0600451685362 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:52:50 +0000 Message-ID: <17b401c89001$192b8a30$2101a8c0@user8b07ccdc8d> From: "Wilbert Paul" To: , =20

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Even if you have no erection problems Viagra would help you to make = better=20 sex more often.
Learn More Now

------=_NextPart_000_17B0_01C89001.192B8A30-- From bierman@campwinadu.com Thu Dec 27 09:21:17 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7tbo-0003Zx-WB for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 09:21:17 -0500 Received: from 122.55.broadband7.iol.cz ([88.102.55.122]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7tbo-0003ns-BJ for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 09:21:16 -0500 Received: from pc ([150.111.82.181] helo=pc) by 122.55.broadband7.iol.cz ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1nFlew-000NRL-tT for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 15:22:07 +0100 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 15:21:35 +0100 To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org From: "jacey bierman" Subject: kakukuka Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 3.0 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: bb8eae9af85e4fcfe76f325e38493bf4 Find out how a larger penis will change your sexual life... http://www.nutetywoo.com/ From Kaisa-keloo@phoenixic.com Thu Dec 27 09:46:40 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7u0O-0004hK-PO for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 09:46:40 -0500 Received: from [89.214.238.60] (helo=[89.214.238.60]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7u0N-0004S7-Av for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 09:46:40 -0500 Received: from RitaPereira ([166.117.196.31]:26246 "EHLO RitaPereira" smtp-auth: TLS-CIPHER: TLS-PEER-CN1: ) by [89.214.238.60] with ESMTP id S22EBMSWZKKVFFHS (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Dec 2007 14:46:56 -0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 14:46:38 -0000 From: "Kaisa keloo" User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org Subject: treat0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 3.0 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 8ac499381112328dd60aea5b1ff596ea compliments ccamp-archive get laidddd with viiiggara http://propertysymbol.com Kaisa keloo From BethdemarcateMata@tradeport.org Thu Dec 27 12:23:25 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7wS5-0003ev-Or; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 12:23:25 -0500 Received: from 134sosua107.codetel.net.do ([200.88.107.134] helo=terminar) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7wS4-0000Ho-Vd; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 12:23:25 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host26315447.tradeport.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id jJ6RoJ5G61.257177.wwp.60y.3755446604242 for ; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 11:22:40 +0600 Message-ID: <23ca801c848ad$2bbb0cc0$2400000a@terminar> From: "Laurie Manuel" To: Subject: Hi Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 11:22:40 +0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_23CA4_01C848AD.2BBB0CC0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8b30eb7682a596edff707698f4a80f7d This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_23CA4_01C848AD.2BBB0CC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable When you are young and stressed up… When you are aged and never give up… Even if you have no erection problems Viagra would help you to make = better sex more often. Learn More Now ------=_NextPart_000_23CA4_01C848AD.2BBB0CC0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Even if you have no erection problems Viagra would help you to make = better=20 sex more often.
Learn More Now

------=_NextPart_000_23CA4_01C848AD.2BBB0CC0-- From arpan255@unit287.com Thu Dec 27 14:27:24 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7yO4-0005I1-Q0 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 14:27:24 -0500 Received: from skynet1.dp.farlep.net ([213.130.14.231]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7yO2-0004LT-TT for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 14:27:24 -0500 Received: from home ([111.176.24.192] helo=home) by skynet1.dp.farlep.net ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1XEAPB-000PRF-Al for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 21:27:50 +0200 Message-ID: <000a01c848be$7f6d1320$e70e82d5@home> From: "arpan Otsuki" To: Subject: tannukik Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 21:27:19 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0006_01C848CF.42F5E320" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Spam-Score: 3.5 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: e5ba305d0e64821bf3d8bc5d3bb07228 ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C848CF.42F5E320 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1251" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Regards ccamp-archive viiagraaaa for your pleaseure http://untilstore.com arpan Otsuki ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C848CF.42F5E320 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1251" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Regards ccamp-archive
viiagraaaa for your pleaseure
http://untilstore.com
arpan Otsuki
------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C848CF.42F5E320-- From Prowse@vecommerce.com.au Thu Dec 27 14:47:02 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7yh4-0002U1-74 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 14:47:02 -0500 Received: from skynet1.dp.farlep.net ([213.130.14.231]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7yh3-0004tC-8C for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 14:47:01 -0500 Received: from home ([162.111.69.108] helo=home) by skynet1.dp.farlep.net ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1oFbpO-000QQU-cm for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 21:47:29 +0200 Message-ID: <000601c848c1$3dc619a0$e70e82d5@home> From: "Per Prowse" To: Subject: talitlum Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 21:46:58 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0009_01C848D2.014EE9A0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Spam-Score: 3.4 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464 ------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C848D2.014EE9A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1251" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Yo yo yo ccamp-archive weeee woooouuulllddd like to offfeeerrr you a phaaaarmmmm http://notecolumn.com Per Prowse ------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C848D2.014EE9A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1251" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Yo yo yo ccamp-archive
weeee woooouuulllddd like to offfeeerrr you a=20 phaaaarmmmm
http://notecolumn.com
Per Prowse
------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C848D2.014EE9A0-- From Fedia@hegger.de Thu Dec 27 14:54:39 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7yoR-0000nH-No for ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 14:54:39 -0500 Received: from dxb-b128851.alshamil.net.ae ([86.98.53.149] helo=[213.42.21.156]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7yoQ-00053Z-Ex for ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 14:54:39 -0500 Received: from Jignesh ([112.117.21.57] helo=Jignesh) by [213.42.21.156] ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1eNAdW-000DIL-ui for ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 11:54:44 -0800 Message-ID: <0573CC8B.656CCA68@hegger.de> Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 11:54:34 -0800 From: "Fedia Safonov" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: ausfiel Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080005030403000101000300" X-Spam-Score: 1.4 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8 --------------080005030403000101000300 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Why settle for an average penis? http://www.munesyt.com/ --------------080005030403000101000300 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Why settle for an average penis? http://www.munesyt.com/
--------------080005030403000101000300-- From CleoacreageCoulter@wikipedia.org Thu Dec 27 15:38:07 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7zUU-0000wI-UV; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 15:38:06 -0500 Received: from [201.230.231.76] (helo=pc.lan) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J7zUU-00062G-8e; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 15:38:06 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host54809559.wikipedia.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id RazUMbPx62.328709.Qmc.bme.5443176148737 for ; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 15:37:57 +0500 Message-ID: <2c2f01c848c8$60eaaa70$2101a8c0@pc> From: "Cherie Darnell" To: Cc: , =20

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Even if you have no erection problems Viagra would help you to make = better=20 sex more often.
Learn More Now

------=_NextPart_000_2C2B_01C848C8.60EAAA70-- From Oliver.Flanagan@mmradio.com Thu Dec 27 18:15:47 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J81x5-0004qk-Ln for ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 18:15:47 -0500 Received: from [213.163.118.1] (helo=[213.163.118.33]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J81x2-0001BU-5T for ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 18:15:47 -0500 Received: from user-rlsqk1ag0p ([171.188.181.31] helo=user-rlsqk1ag0p) by [213.163.118.33] ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1fltFp-000IWX-Kb for ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 00:16:10 -0800 Message-ID: <012B7F43.634B91E6@mmradio.com> Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 00:15:39 -0800 From: "Oliver Flanagan" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: amawak Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------000305030602080102040203" X-Spam-Score: 3.1 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8 --------------000305030602080102040203 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 67% of all women wish their man had a larger penis. http://hunbebego.com/ --------------000305030602080102040203 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 67% of all women wish their man had a larger penis. http://hunbebego.com/
--------------000305030602080102040203-- From RaymondawardClark@njtransit.com Thu Dec 27 19:17:06 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J82uQ-000064-SI; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 19:17:06 -0500 Received: from cpe-66-27-148-209.socal.res.rr.com ([66.27.148.209] helo=jarredb346bb68.socal.rr.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J82uQ-0002fb-C1; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 19:17:06 -0500 Received: from balletic by njtransit.com with SMTP id Ts8bt4c4Om for ; Thu, 27 Dec 2007 16:16:58 +0800 From: "Timothy Lopez" To: Cc: , Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J87Tk-0007mt-6A for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 00:09:52 -0500 Received: from [38.98.99.2] (helo=jqken) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J87Tj-0001TB-SU for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 00:09:52 -0500 Received: from rdq ([153.64.198.168]) by jqken (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id lBS5AvNv004087; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 00:10:57 -0500 Message-ID: <000f01c8490f$e03b5120$a8c64099@rdq> From: To: Subject: Sparkling and happy all through the New Year Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 00:09:51 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2578 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2578 X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 01485d64dfa90b45a74269b3ca9d5574 Happy New Year To You! http://newyearcards2008.com/ From marcelo-digital_@datafull.com Fri Dec 28 01:51:44 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J894K-0004OJ-TA for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 01:51:44 -0500 Received: from avas-mr03.fibertel.com.ar ([24.232.0.216]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J894J-0004AN-Kw for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 01:51:44 -0500 Received: from 200-127-234-3.cab.prima.net.ar ([200.127.234.3]:3101 "EHLO coloso" smtp-auth: "zoolander" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by avas-mr03.fibertel.com.ar with ESMTPA id S882203AbXL1Gve; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 03:51:34 -0300 Message-ID: <3825-220071252864934621@coloso> To: "TIERRA DIGITAL" Reply-To: "Tierra Digital" From: "Tierra Digital" Subject: NAVIDAD SIN INTERESES Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 03:49:34 -0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_30286140662282079764934711" X-Fib-Al-Info: Al X-Fib-Al-MRId: 16ea8b6e7a2c4925cbce0c7e587b144d X-Fib-Al-SA: analyzed X-Fib-Al-From: marcelo-digital_@datafull.com X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 00134749b78ab2213964fc53d03de937 ------=_NextPart_30286140662282079764934711 Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20 NOTEBOOK CABALLITO=20 =20 (011) 15-6971-7166 marcelo-digital@datafull=2Ecom NOTEBOOK BANGHO BQ1400C=20 • Modelo: BanghóMov CQ1400C • Procesador: Intel Celeron Mobile 520 1,6Hz • Memoria: 512Mb DDR2 667Mhz=2E (2 Slots Max 1Gb=2E) • Disco Rígido: SATA 80Gb=2E 5400RPM • Optico: Lectograbadora de DVD - DVDRW DUAL LAYER • VGA: Onboard 256MB maximo • Chipset: Via VN896 + VT8237A • Placa de Red 10/100, WIFI Wireless 802,11 b/g • Peso: 2,2Kg • Batería: 6 Celdas • Puertos: 3 x USB 2=2E0, One Express Card/54(34) slot, • Conectividad: Modem 56Kbps MDC v=2E92 • Lector de Memoria: 7 en 1 • Pantalla: 14" WXGA$2089 =20 =20 NOTEBOOK HP 530 CM420 Procesador Celeron M420 Disco Rigido 120 GB Memoria DDR2 512 MB 667MHz Pantalla 15=2E4 WXGA DVD-RW DUAL LAYER WIreless - Modem 56k $2905 =20 =20 NOTEBOOK HP 530 T2300 Procesador Core Duo T2300 Disco Rigido 120 GB Memoria DDR2 512 MB 667MHz Pantalla 15=2E4 WXGA DVD-RW DUAL LAYER WIreless - Modem 56k $3139 =20 =20 =20 TOSHIBA SATELLITE A135-SP4157 Procesador Celeron M520 Disco Rigido 100 GB Memoria DDR2 1024 MB 533MHz Pantalla 15=2E4 WXGA DVD-RW DUAL LAYER WIreless - Salida de TV Windows Vista Home Premium $2749 =20 TOSHIBA SATELLITE=20 A215-SP4057 Procesador AMD Athlon X2 TK55 Disco Rigido 160 GB Memoria DDR2 1024 MB 667MHz Pantalla 15=2E4 WXGA DVD-RW DUAL LAYER WIreless - Salida de TV Webcam 1=2E3M - Microfono Windows Vista Home Premium $3929 =20 TOSHIBA SATELLITE=20 U305-SP5017 Procesador Intel CoreT 2 Duo T5300 Disco Rigido 120 GB Memoria DDR2 1024 MB 533MHz Pantalla 13=2E3 WideScreen DVD-RW DUAL LAYER WIreless Bluetooth - IEEE 1394 Windows Vista Home Premium $5419 =20 =20 ACER AS5310-2054 Procesador Celeron M520 1=2E6GHz Disco Rigido 80 GB Memoria DDR2 512 MB Pantalla 15=2E4 WXGA DVD/CD-RW WIreless - Modem 56K LINPUS LINUX $2353 =20 =20 ACER AS5100-5637 Procesador AMD Turion 64 X2 TL52 Disco Rigido 120 GB Memoria DDR2 1024 MB Pantalla 15=2E4 WXGA DVD-RW DUAL LAYER WIreless - Modem 56k Windows Vista Home Premium $3539 =20 =20 =20 ACER AS5710-4852 Procesador Core Duo T2350 1=2E6 GHz Disco Rigido 120 GB Memoria DDR2 1024 MB Pantalla 15=2E4 WXGA DVD-RW DUAL LAYER WIreless - Modem 56K Webcam 1=2E3M - Microfono Windows Vista Home Premium $3649 =20 ACER AS7720-6508 Procesador Core Duo T5250 1=2E5 GHz Disco Rigido 250 GB Memoria DDR2 1024 MB Pantalla 17=2E0 WXGA DVD-RW DUAL LAYER WIreless - =09Bluetooth Windows Vista Home Premium $4629 Precios Finales con Factura C, entrega en local de Computación en = la zona de Caballito, Capital Federal=2E Argentina=2E Aceptamos pago con Tarjetas de Credito VISA, Mastercard, American Express,= Cabal y Carta Franca en Nuestro Local=2E Creditos en el acto con DNI, recibo de Sueldo y un Servicio=2E=20 ------=_NextPart_30286140662282079764934711 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
NOTEBOOK CABALLITO
(011) 15-6971-7166
marcelo-digital@datafull=2Ecom
NOTEBOOK BANG= HO BQ1400C

• Modelo: Banghó= Mov CQ1400C
• Procesador: Intel Celeron Mobile 520 1,6Hz
• Memoria: 512Mb DDR2 667Mhz=2E (2 Slots Max 1Gb=2E)
• Disco Rígido: SATA 80Gb=2E 5400RPM
• Optico: Lectograbadora de DVD - DVDRW DUAL LAYER
• VGA: Onboard 256MB maximo
• Chipset: Via VN896 + VT8237A
• Placa de Red 10/100, WIFI Wireless 802,11 b/g
• Peso: 2,2Kg
• Batería: 6 Celdas
• Puertos: 3 x USB 2=2E0, One Express Card/54(34) slot,
• Conectividad: Modem 56Kbps MDC v=2E92
• Lector de Memoria: 7 en 1
• Pantalla: 14" WXGA

$20= 89

NOTEBOOK HP 530 CM420

Procesador Celeron M420
Disco Rigido 120 GB
Memoria DDR2 512 MB 667MHz
Pantalla 15=2E4 WXGA
DVD-RW DUAL LAYER
WIreless - Modem 56k

$2905

NOTEBOOK HP 530 T2300

Procesador Core Duo T23= 00
Disco Rigido 120 GB
Memoria DDR2 512 MB 667MHz
Pantalla 15=2E4 WXGA
DVD-RW DUAL LAYER
WIreless - Modem 56k

$3139

=

TOSHIBA SATELLITE
=20 A135-SP4157

Procesador Celeron M520
Disco Rigido 100 GB
Memoria DDR2 1024 MB 533MHz
Pantalla 15=2E4 WXGA
DVD-RW DUAL LAYER
WIreless - Salida de TV
Windows Vista Home Premium

$2749

TOSHIBA SATELLITE
A215-SP4057

Procesador AMD Athlon X= 2 TK55
Disco Rigido 160 GB
Memoria DDR2 1024 MB 667MHz
Pantalla 15=2E4 WXGA
DVD-RW DUAL LAYER
WIreless - Salida de TV
Webcam 1=2E3M - Microfono
Windows Vista Home Premium

$3929

TOSHIBA SATELLITE
U305-SP5017

Procesador Intel CoreT = 2 Duo T5300
Disco Rigido 120 GB
Memoria DDR2 1024 MB 533MHz
Pantalla 13=2E3 WideScreen
DVD-RW DUAL LAYER
WIreless
Bluetooth - IEEE 1394
Windows Vista Home Premium

$5419

ACER AS5310-2054

Procesador Celeron M520 1=2E6GHz
Disco Rigido 80 GB
Memoria DDR2 512 MB
Pantalla 15=2E4 WXGA
DVD/CD-RW
WIreless - Modem 56K
LINPUS LINUX

$2353

 

ACER AS5100-5637

Procesador AMD Turion 64 X2 TL52
Disco Rigido 120 GB
Memoria DDR2 1024 MB
Pantalla 15=2E4 WXGA
DVD-RW DUAL LAYER
WIreless - Modem 56k
Windows Vista Home Premium

$3539

 

ACER AS5710-4852

Procesador Core Duo T2350 1=2E6 GHz
Disco Rigido 120 GB
Memoria DDR2 1024 MB
Pantalla 15=2E4 WXGA
DVD-RW DUAL LAYER
WIreless - Modem 56K
Webcam 1=2E3M - Microfono
Windows Vista Home Premium

$3649

ACER AS7720-6508

Procesador Core Duo T5250 1=2E5 GHz
Disco Rigido 250 GB
Memoria DDR2 1024 MB
Pantalla 17=2E0 WXGA
DVD-RW DUAL LAYER
WIreless - =09Bluetooth
Windows Vista Home Premium

$4629
Precios Finales= con Factura C, entrega en local de Computación en la zona de Cabal= lito, Capital Federal=2E Argentina=2E
Aceptamos pago con Tarjetas de Credito VISA, Mastercard, America= n Express, Cabal y Carta Franca en Nuestro Local=2E
Creditos en el acto con DNI, recibo de Sueldo y un Servicio=2E
------=_NextPart_30286140662282079764934711-- From MaryfealtyElder@putfile.com Fri Dec 28 03:28:01 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8AZV-00019I-MT; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 03:28:01 -0500 Received: from pool-71-174-25-173.bstnma.east.verizon.net ([71.174.25.173] helo=boys.myhome.westell.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8AZV-0005qt-2h; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 03:28:01 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host83204498.putfile.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id gYsuucIY20.348049.Uo8.pyf.0723234637558 for ; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 03:27:51 +0500 Message-ID: <9352301c8492b$9015fa80$2d01a8c0@BOYS> From: "Carol Mayfield" To: Cc: , =20

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Even if you have no erection problems Viagra would help you to make = better=20 sex more often.
Learn More Now

------=_NextPart_000_9351F_01C8492B.9015FA80-- From Matsubara@balidestinationtravel.com Fri Dec 28 06:24:51 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8DKd-00055H-OF for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 06:24:51 -0500 Received: from host173-190-static.89-82-b.business.telecomitalia.it ([82.89.190.173]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8DKd-0004Yx-2X for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 06:24:51 -0500 Received: by 10.213.94.25 with SMTP id RlHAqVltBkiap; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 12:24:51 +0100 (GMT) Received: by 192.168.139.57 with SMTP id TlRnzGyFefUhkP.1431655841712; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 12:24:49 +0100 (GMT) Message-ID: <3103F27A.00C14C74@balidestinationtravel.com> Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 12:24:46 +0100 From: "Davina Matsubara" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org Subject: ilanakeg Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: bb8eae9af85e4fcfe76f325e38493bf4 All the girls will love your new look! http://fifturesi.com/ From RochellepredictorDewitt@jerseyeveningpost.com Fri Dec 28 07:09:28 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8E1o-0005he-GG; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 07:09:28 -0500 Received: from 116.red-88-16-178.dynamicip.rima-tde.net ([88.16.178.116] helo=desktop) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8E1n-0005a0-UT; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 07:09:28 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host69458420.jerseyeveningpost.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id Yp5Kc64P37.813480.6en.YlJ.3434927658270 for ; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 13:09:17 -0100 Message-ID: <295001c8494a$7d476e60$2101a8c0@desktop> From: "Gwen Dewitt" To: Cc: , =20

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Even if you have no erection problems Viagra would help you to make = better=20 sex more often.
Learn More Now

------=_NextPart_000_294C_01C8494A.7D476E60-- From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Fri Dec 28 09:34:29 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8GI8-0007Cm-GQ for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 09:34:28 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8GI7-0005Zl-B0 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 09:34:28 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J8G6z-000Jj8-P5 for ccamp-data@psg.com; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:22:57 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [62.128.201.249] (helo=asmtp2.iomartmail.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J8G6Z-000JgG-6e for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:22:43 +0000 Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.8) with ESMTP id lBSEMRYQ021947 for ; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:22:27 GMT Received: from your029b8cecfe (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lBSEMPCO021937 for ; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:22:27 GMT Message-ID: <047b01c8495d$118600c0$0501a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" From: "Adrian Farrel" To: References: <02e101c840bd$08eaa090$9200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Subject: Updated: Draft response to the OIF Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:14:52 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: 0cff8c3ec906d056784362c06f5f88c1 Hi, After some off-line emails, here is an updated draft response to http://www.olddog.co.uk/oif2007_382_01.pdf The changes are in the answer to question 3) Any further comments? Cheers, Adrian === To : Lyndon Ong, OIF TC Chair Cc: Ross Callon, IETF Routing Area Director David Ward, IETF Routing Area Director Subject: Response to Your Questions about GMPLS Protocol Usage Dear Lyndon, Thanks for your communication dated 29th November 2007 and your subsequent email exchange with clarifications. Please find below responses from CCAMP experts to the questions you posed. May we take this oportunity to stress that we are open to receiving such questions in a less formal way either directly or through the CCAMP mailing list, and may be able to provide timely responses during the course of your testing events. > 1) One of the features provided in the OIF UNI 2.0 is the ability to > non-disruptively modify service attributes associated with an LSP. The > modification of the service attributes is limited to LSPs that were > initiated using Shared Explicit filter style. Modification is performed > by signaling a new LSP that utilizes the same Tunnel ID as the original > LSP but with the new service parameters. Once the new LSP state is > established, the original LSP state is removed. There are two distinct options for modifying an LSP. The first is "in-place" modification where a new trigger Path message is sent for an existing LSP. The second is the "make-before-break" approach to tunnel/service modification first introduced in RFC 3209. You appear to be refering to the latter case since you mention a new LSP. > Non-disruptive modification was demonstrated in the 2007 > interoperability test by modifying the bandwidth of an LSP realized by a > SONET/SDH VCAT group. In the process of testing, a number of questions > arose regarding the RESV message flow. These questions included: > > - How many RESV messages are expected to be generated? Is it one since > the resources in use by both LSPs are the same, or two since the LSPs > are handled through separate signaling sessions. In make-before-break, each LSP is signaled independently. Per LSP Resv messages should be expected. Assuming the old LSP is in-place at the time of signaling the new LSP, and only one Path message is issued, then only one Resv would be expected. That is, a Resv for the new LSP, but no further Resv for the existing LSP. When the old LSP is also modified as part of the make-before-break, e.g., to update administrative status prior to alarm-free tear-down, then a Resv message on the old LSP may also be generated. > - What is the bandwidth amount that should be reflected in the RESV > messages? If separate RESV messages are generated for both LSPs, is it > the bandwidth requested in the corresponding PATH message? Or is it > the actual bandwidth being provided by the connection at the time the > RESV message is generated? According to RFC 4606: For a particular sender in a session, the contents of the FLOWSPEC object received in a Resv message SHOULD be identical to the contents of the SENDER_TSPEC object received in the corresponding Path message. If the objects do not match, a ResvErr message with a "Traffic Control Error/Bad Flowspec value" error SHOULD be generated. Again, in make-before-break, each LSP is signaled independently. > In the interop test both approaches were observed. To facilitate the > subsequent demonstration, receivers were expected to handle both cases. > > 2) In the process of testing, we found that not all implementations > included Explicit Route Objects (ERO) in PATH messages when performing > graceful deletion, even though earlier PATH messages for the LSP had > included an ERO. For some intermediate node implementations, the lack of > the ERO was seen as removing the 'pinned' nature of the connection, > causing the node to interpret the PATH message as requiring a new path > computation which may end up using a different route. Other > implementations utilized the Session and Sender Template to relate the > received PATH message with the existing connection thereby identifying > the path the message should be forwarded on. This approach was taken by > these implementations since inclusion of an ERO is not mandatory. We > would appreciate CCAMP's thoughts on what the behavior should be. As described in RFC 2205, Path and Resv messages are idempotent. This means that any Path message reflects full state, and differences between one Path message and a subsequent Path message may be reasonably considered an explicit change. Therefore, while there is no explicit requirement stated in RFC 3473, it is typical to only modify the Admin Status Object in Path messages sent in connection to RFC 3473 section 7.2.1. deletion procedures (i.e. to include the full ERO as on previous Path messages). It may be observed, however, that while an implementation detecting a change in ERO (such as the removal of the ERO) may legitimately opt to reroute, that implementation should also note the change in Admin Status associated with the graceful deletion and may "assume" that such a reroute would be a waste of time. Further, in a transport system, implementaitons should only perform local reroutes (deviating from in-place LSPs) with extreme caution since these risk impacting traffic. > 3) In the process of testing, we found cases where the update of a > link's attributes (i.e. available capacity) was not being done by > advertising an updated LSA using the same LSAid, but by flushing the old > LSA followed by generation of a new LSA with a new LSAid. Since the > LSAid for Opaque LSAs is not tied to the resource being advertised > (i.e. the resource is identified using TLVs in the Opaque LSA, not using > the LSAid as is done with IPv4 OSPF LSAs), this can cause a problem as > it causes the order that the LSAs are processed to become important. We > would appreciate CCAMP's thoughts on what the behavior should be. The OSPF WG, is the proper WG to respond to this as they are the authoritative source on OSPF technology. From our perspective, RFC 2328 dictates the use of the same Link State ID when advertising a change in information about a link, and RFC 3630 states "The LSA ID has no topological significance." While it is certainly possible to advertise a change via issuing an LSA with a new Link State ID and flushing old state, from the perspective of OSPF this is not a change in link state, rather a completely new link. In fact, when there are key changes to the information advertised about a link (for example, a change to the Link Type or Link ID), the advertising router should recognise that these changes represent the advertisement of a new link and should use a new LSA with a new Link State ID. However, where the change is clearly a change to the link state of an existing link, the advertising router should use the same Link State ID. > 4) Finally, in the process of testing, we found cases where established > connections were deleted based on node restart procedures in RFC > 3473. R163 of the OIF Carrier requirements (liaised to IETF in 12/2006) > states deletion of established connections as the result of control > plane failure (including node restart) shall not occur. It has been > identified this could also occur when a number of cascaded nodes restart > at the same time. We would appreciate CCAMP's thoughts on ways to > prevent deletion of established connections from occurring when a node > restarts. Without specific details, it's impossible to address the found cases or to identify if they were due to implementation or specification issues. More broadly, RFC 3473 does not require the removal of forwarding state, even in the case of state synchronization errors, and implementations may take different action (such as reporting the condition to a management station). An implementation at a restarting node may consider that the lack of control plane state at its neighbor indicates that the removal of forwarding plane state has been attempted through the control plane while the restarting node was down and should follow local policy in determining how to react. We would also like to direct you to RFC 5063 and draft-ietf-ccamp-gr-description which may provide additional relevant information. We hope this addresses your questions. Best regards, Adrian Farrel and Deborah Brungard IETF CCAMP working group co-chairs From KriscrispinNickerson@deadlinehollywooddaily.com Fri Dec 28 10:15:42 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8Gw2-0000gy-6R; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 10:15:42 -0500 Received: from [85.98.26.52] (helo=armadaa423c07b) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8Gw1-00023w-OJ; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 10:15:42 -0500 Received: from settle by deadlinehollywooddaily.com with SMTP id 3Rzf4pcd1u for ; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:15:27 -0200 From: "Jerry Jacobsen" To: Subject: Come see what it means to be a VIP. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7bac9cb154eb5790ae3b2913587a40de $2400 welcome bonus will be deposited in your new casino account! When YOU WIN, we win! Best offer in gambling history . Get your bonus and walk the red carpet to winnings and fun. http://goldtopcasino7.net/ From homayun@rochma.com Fri Dec 28 14:06:22 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8KXG-0008GF-M6 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:06:22 -0500 Received: from ppp-195-76.33-151.iol.it ([151.33.76.195]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8KXF-0000Pp-Uf for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:06:22 -0500 Received: from marco-k8icv75as ([154.125.109.113] helo=marco-k8icv75as) by ppp-195-76.33-151.iol.it ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1HDTYN-000WRG-FM for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 20:06:05 +0100 Message-ID: <000501c84984$aa3219e0$c34c2197@marcok8icv75as> From: "Constantin homayun" To: Subject: esosines Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 20:05:51 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0008_01C8498D.0BF681E0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464 ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C8498D.0BF681E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Good day ccamp-archive We wish you a happy new year with viiiiiiaaaaaggggraaaa http://notecolumn.com Constantin homayun ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C8498D.0BF681E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Good day ccamp-archive
We wish you a happy new year with=20 viiiiiiaaaaaggggraaaa
http://notecolumn.com
Constantin homayun
------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C8498D.0BF681E0-- From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Fri Dec 28 14:10:27 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8KbD-00078P-3X for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:10:27 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8KbC-0000Xq-I3 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:10:27 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J8KOr-000F3C-4z for ccamp-data@psg.com; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 18:57:41 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [62.128.201.249] (helo=asmtp2.iomartmail.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J8KOi-000F1g-2D for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 18:57:39 +0000 Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.8) with ESMTP id lBSItuHJ006718; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 18:56:00 GMT Received: from your029b8cecfe (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id lBSItqAP006666; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 18:55:54 GMT Message-ID: <04fe01c84983$45362960$0501a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "David Ward" , "Tim Polk" Cc: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A, ATTLABS" , "Kohei Shiomoto" , "Ross Callon" , References: <3525C9833C09ED418C6FD6CD9514668C02F39770@emailwf1.jnpr.net> <476BBD36.8020806@lab.ntt.co.jp> Subject: Your Discusses and Comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interwork-fmwk Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 18:55:48 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 5011df3e2a27abcc044eaa15befcaa87 Hi, I think we have proposals to resolve your issues with draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interwork-fmwk. Can you confirm that they would meet your needs? Thanks, Adrian === Tim Polk Discuss "This is a discuss discuss. Personally, I find the phased migration model terrifying. Selective introduction of features seems like a great opportunity to perform a DoS attack on your own network. Are there features of GMPLS that assume the existence of other features for consistent operation? It seems like you are developing your own interim internal "standards" that need to be self-consistent. Is this really a good thing for the IETF to recommend?" Ross is right that the intention of CCAMP in this I-D was to not recommend the phased model (although it should be noted that this is exactly what the vendors are doing)-: So section 4.3 is a fine place to add additional warnings as follows... > Interoperability concerns though are exacerbated by this migration > model, unless all LSRs in the network are updated simultaneously and > there is a clear understanding of which subset of features are to be > included in the hybrid LSRs. Interworking between a hybrid LSR and an > unchanged MPLS LSR would put the hybrid LSR in the role of a GMPLS > LSR as described in the previous sections and puts the unchanged LSR > in the role of an MPLS LSR. The potential for different hybrids > within the network will complicate matters considerably. This model is, therefore, only appropriate for use when the set of new features to be deployed is well known and limited, and where there is a clear understanding of and agreement on this set of features by the network operators of the ISP(s) involved as well as all vendors whose equipment will be involved in the migration. === Tim Polk Comment "Section 5, Paragraph 4 first sentence currently reads: The second strategy for PSC and non-PSC networks is to migrate from the PSC network to GMPLS, first, and then enable GMPLS within the non-PSC network. I suggest: The second strategy is to migrate from the PSC network to GMPLS, first, and then enable GMPLS within the non-PSC network." This should actually read... The second strategy is to migrate the PSC network to GMPLS first, and then enable GMPLS within the non-PSC network." === Dave Ward Comment "There is no mention of using PCEs for this functionality." PCE could fit usefully into the Island model and the Integrated model. It would not play any valuable role in the Phased model. I think the best place to add a reference would be in section 5.1 since PCE may provide a component in the migration toolkit. This would not be as strong as a recommendation to use PCE since it is clear that the use of PCE is not a prerequisite for migration. So we could add... 5.1.4. Path Computation Element The Path Computation Element (PCE) [RFC4655] may provide an additional tool to aid MPLS to GMPLS migration. If a layered network approach (Section 5.1.1) is used, PCEs may be used to facilitate the computation of paths for LSPs in the different layers [PCE-INTER-LAYER]. And to section 12.2 [RFC4655] A. Farrel, JP. Vasseur and J. Ash, "A Path Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, August 2006. [PCE-INTER-LAYER] Oki, E., Le Roux , J-L,. and Farrel, A., "Framework for PCE-Based Inter-Layer MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering," draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-frwk, work in progress. From KendrickafferentMoses@wikipedia.org Fri Dec 28 16:43:31 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8MzL-00057Z-51; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:43:31 -0500 Received: from [189.13.250.214] (helo=lima20b3ebdf8a) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8MzK-0004Op-OO; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:43:31 -0500 Received: from garble by wikipedia.org with SMTP id f5guPj4YqE for ; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 18:43:19 +0300 From: "Thaddeus Dorsey" To: Subject: Win $$$ instead of throwing it all away at other casinos. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7bac9cb154eb5790ae3b2913587a40de Download our casino in 20 seconds to get $2400 richer when you join. We have it all! Get to know your new casino home! We're serious about fun. http://goldtopcasino7.net/ From GonzalobanalWalter@bartleby.com Fri Dec 28 17:04:15 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8NJO-0000v5-Up; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:04:14 -0500 Received: from bb219-74-43-242.singnet.com.sg ([219.74.43.242] helo=your0cdc4f5844.gateway.2wire.net) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8NJO-0006eh-7G; Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:04:14 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host11457620.bartleby.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id KTIBMs4j96.743074.Cez.8II.5601688553348 for ; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 06:03:44 -0800 Message-ID: <20d3e01c8499d$91d83d20$7901a8c0@your0cdc4f5844> From: "Bobbie Stephenson" To: Cc: , =20

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Even if you have no erection problems Viagra would help you to make = better=20 sex more often.
Learn More Now

------=_NextPart_000_20D3A_01C8499D.91D83D20-- From RebekahchaosHightower@warnersstellian.com Sat Dec 29 00:30:41 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8UHR-0003PO-5s; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 00:30:41 -0500 Received: from [190.67.203.29] (helo=familiar2c46bc) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8UHQ-00021t-Pb; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 00:30:41 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host45570423.warnersstellian.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id PKfiCGdP17.966942.XMn.C6C.3673889356708 for ; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 00:30:28 +0500 Message-ID: <81bfd01c849db$f3a93fc0$2101a8c0@familiar2c46bc> From: "Lucinda Tripp" To: , =20

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Even if you have no erection problems Viagra would help you to make = better=20 sex more often.
Learn More Now

------=_NextPart_000_81BF9_01C849DB.F3A93FC0-- From PaulamphioxisHarris@createchange.org Sat Dec 29 04:23:21 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8Xua-0004LN-OV; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 04:23:20 -0500 Received: from pool-71-249-33-132.nycmny.east.verizon.net ([71.249.33.132] helo=d65n2891.myhome.westell.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8Xua-0006dN-Fw; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 04:23:20 -0500 Received: from salamander by createchange.org with SMTP id S3IWw6sIRI for ; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 04:23:11 +0500 From: "Thomas Harris" To: , Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8ZEF-0003hd-1N for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 05:47:43 -0500 Received: from m225.net81-64-167.noos.fr ([81.64.167.225]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8ZEE-0008UH-Ay for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 05:47:42 -0500 Received: from JUETMELY ([185.152.84.185] helo=JUETMELY) by m225.net81-64-167.noos.fr ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1pGYAY-000FCF-pJ for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 11:48:09 +0100 Message-ID: <000a01c84a08$3c5709b0$e1a74051@JUETMELY> From: "Glyndwr galicia" To: Subject: repeind Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 11:47:41 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0005_01C84A10.9E1B71B0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464 ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C84A10.9E1B71B0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi there ccamp-archive New year saaaaleeee for viiiaaaagrrraaaaa http://roomnoon.com Glyndwr galicia ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C84A10.9E1B71B0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi there ccamp-archive
New year saaaaleeee for = viiiaaaagrrraaaaa
http://roomnoon.com
Glyndwr galicia
------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C84A10.9E1B71B0-- From AngelrelieveAlvarez@cuymedia.com Sat Dec 29 06:04:27 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8ZUQ-000069-Vx for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 06:04:27 -0500 Received: from dslb-084-059-026-037.pools.arcor-ip.net ([84.59.26.37] helo=adem2alf9i0ftx) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8ZUO-0000PO-Bx for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 06:04:24 -0500 Received: from rosary by cuymedia.com with SMTP id USuEppLY6S for ; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 12:04:01 -0100 From: "Raul Mccoy" To: Subject: Visit and start seeing the dollars coming. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7bac9cb154eb5790ae3b2913587a40de Download our casino in 20 seconds to get $2400 richer when you join. We know how to treat our players - how about a $2400 welcome bonmus when you join? If you're in the US or anywhere else, join your new casino paradise. Relax and have fun with poker, blackjack, roulette, progressive video slots at your own leisure from your couch. http://besttopgambling.com/ From HughwabashJensen@outsidethegarden.com Sat Dec 29 06:26:25 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8Zph-0000PD-2g for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 06:26:25 -0500 Received: from 49.pool85-49-15.dynamic.orange.es ([85.49.15.49] helo=sn103182190009) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8Zpf-0000rI-RV for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 06:26:24 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host95457363.outsidethegarden.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id JWpvvMP943.550213.FsJ.4LM.3835239447519 for ; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 12:24:50 -0100 Message-ID: <14373601c84a0d$7b629e30$0a00a8c0@SN103182190009> From: "Darren Mendoza" To: Subject: Your life Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 12:24:50 -0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_143732_01C84A0D.7B629E30" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8b30eb7682a596edff707698f4a80f7d This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_143732_01C84A0D.7B629E30 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable When you are young and stressed up… When you are aged and never give up… Even if you have no erection problems Viagra would help you to make = better sex more often. Learn More Now ------=_NextPart_000_143732_01C84A0D.7B629E30 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Even if you have no erection problems Viagra would help you to make = better=20 sex more often.
Learn More Now

------=_NextPart_000_143732_01C84A0D.7B629E30-- From Lazrry635@mkeproperty.com Sat Dec 29 06:38:35 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8a1S-0005i0-Ui for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 06:38:34 -0500 Received: from adon220.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl ([79.185.95.220] helo=adoi23.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8a1S-00019k-7N for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 06:38:34 -0500 Received: from lol-jyxnhifoyli by mkeproperty.com with ASMTP id F614A9C7 for ; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 12:38:43 +0100 Received: from lol-jyxnhifoyli ([124.121.13.48]) by mkeproperty.com with ESMTP id 8B4D056B3BEE for ; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 12:38:43 +0100 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 12:38:33 +0100 To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org From: "Lazrry Thurairajah" Subject: inossral Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 2.1 (++) X-Scan-Signature: bb8eae9af85e4fcfe76f325e38493bf4 All natural penis enlargement pills with no side effects! http://eigtjademl.com/ From Schemenauer@mkeproperty.com Sat Dec 29 06:46:31 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8a99-0008Ks-EY for ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 06:46:31 -0500 Received: from adon220.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl ([79.185.95.220] helo=adoi23.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8a98-0001Kg-Tw for ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 06:46:31 -0500 Received: from lol-jyxnhifoyli ([181.106.19.58]:9754 "EHLO lol-jyxnhifoyli" smtp-auth: TLS-CIPHER: TLS-PEER-CN1: ) by adoi23.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl with ESMTP id S22WWSGZZUWYCFXA (ORCPT ); Sat, 29 Dec 2007 12:46:30 +0100 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 12:46:20 +0100 To: ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org From: "polina Schemenauer" Subject: interfib Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: bb8eae9af85e4fcfe76f325e38493bf4 That's a Major Leg you have down there, thanks for telling me the secret! http://vleentube.com/ From oliver1knute@pinkponk.com Sat Dec 29 09:55:34 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8d66-0002t3-2z for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 09:55:34 -0500 Received: from [89.165.148.18] (helo=89.165.148.18) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8d65-0002fX-Jo for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 09:55:34 -0500 Message-ID: <000901c84a2a$07c99185$d5ef2fbb@wevdjuua> From: "burke wendel" To: "Eloise Eddy" Subject: perfectly crafted exclusive watches rolex Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 13:08:12 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-Spam-Score: 4.4 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 2870a44b67ee17965ce5ad0177e150f4 Perfectly crafted luxury timepieces...the finest of products at the LOWEST prices!! http://picknewyear.net/ From MarywalrusHull@eclipse.org Sat Dec 29 10:11:02 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8dL4-00011B-KE for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 10:11:02 -0500 Received: from cpc1-colc1-0-0-cust146.colc.cable.ntl.com ([82.21.48.147] helo=hinsonb6101d01) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8dL4-0003Dd-Am for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 10:11:02 -0500 Received: from gaithersburg by eclipse.org with SMTP id AF0cvZzx5k for ; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 15:10:41 +0000 From: "Dante Barr" To: Subject: Slots.. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7bac9cb154eb5790ae3b2913587a40de Get your bonus and walk the red carpet to winnings and fun. Get $2400 you download our casino. Play your favorite games from the comfort of your home, USA players ARE included! USA players too! Download and GO! http://topbestgambling.net/ From kipp@currentmail.com Sat Dec 29 11:13:49 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8eJp-0003ib-Ss for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 11:13:49 -0500 Received: from 155.141.98-84.rev.gaoland.net ([84.98.141.155] helo=62.35.188.42) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8eJp-0004ga-Au for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 11:13:49 -0500 Message-ID: <000501c84a36$06803954$307c1292@asprogqm> From: "dean regina" To: Subject: Hermes Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 14:30:26 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0002_01C84A36.067BDDE6" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: cd26b070c2577ac175cd3a6d878c6248 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0002_01C84A36.067BDDE6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Prestige replicas =20 Most popular watches Alain = Silberstein•Chopard•Jaeger•LeCoutrePorsche•Design= =20 =20 Most popular TIFFANY & CO. JEWERLY Tiffany & CO Earings =20 Most popular PENS Mont Blanc Ballpoint•Louis Vuitton Rollerball•St Dupont = Fountain =20 Click here =09 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0002_01C84A36.067BDDE6 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Prestige
replicas

Most popular = watches

Alain = Silberstein•Chopard•Jaeger•LeCoutrePorsche•Design=

=20

Most popular TIFFANY & CO. = JEWERLY

Tiffany & CO Earings

Most popular PENS

Mont Blanc = Ballpoint•Louis Vuitton Rollerball•St Dupont Fountain
Click here =09
------=_NextPart_000_0002_01C84A36.067BDDE6-- From Robert833@beekenhei.nl Sat Dec 29 11:13:55 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8eJv-0003u0-EZ for ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 11:13:55 -0500 Received: from [189.25.233.134] (helo=18925233134.user.veloxzone.com.br) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8eJu-0004gX-QT for ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 11:13:55 -0500 Received: from karol by beekenhei.nl with ASMTP id DD6C7C93 for ; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 14:13:48 -0300 Received: from karol ([165.173.40.139]) by beekenhei.nl with ESMTP id 4257392760A2 for ; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 14:13:48 -0300 Message-ID: <1FC75D1B.CFA78798@beekenhei.nl> Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 14:13:28 -0300 From: "Robert Ghaemi" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: atypics Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 4.0 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 08e48e05374109708c00c6208b534009 Make your woman happy, meet your fullest potential with VPXL Herbal
penis enhancement pills http://menainpot.com/
From Maynick@j-u-d-e-x.de Sat Dec 29 12:10:05 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8fCG-0002Sg-VF for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 12:10:04 -0500 Received: from p5489832f.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([84.137.131.47]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8fCG-0005xG-AG for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 12:10:04 -0500 Received: by 10.225.213.161 with SMTP id eyqAOnJnfzRJz; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 18:12:15 +0100 (GMT) Received: by 192.168.96.130 with SMTP id fZFlwMniaPHCtQ.4091982342993; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 18:12:13 +0100 (GMT) Message-ID: <3798507F.CED1E7B0@j-u-d-e-x.de> Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 18:12:10 +0100 From: "joush Maynick" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org Subject: srebburd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 1.7 (+) X-Scan-Signature: bb8eae9af85e4fcfe76f325e38493bf4 I get a lot of questions on how I got my 9 inch dick http://www.jueretu.com/ From NormaarMadison@anandtech.com Sat Dec 29 13:25:20 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8gN6-0004dh-4Y for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 13:25:20 -0500 Received: from cm1011575-a.maast1.lb.home.nl ([84.30.64.105] helo=acer78ada27b60.maast1.lb.home.nl) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8gN5-0007l2-O2 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 13:25:20 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host88968436.anandtech.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id 12Q6YvpZ32.845742.fMG.UCv.8308188734068 for ; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 19:24:44 -0100 Message-ID: <1b61c201c84a48$2c4aa7d0$6401a8c0@acer78ada27b60> From: "Andrea Shoemaker" To: Subject: Your order Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 19:24:44 -0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_1B61BE_01C84A48.2C4AA7D0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8b30eb7682a596edff707698f4a80f7d This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_1B61BE_01C84A48.2C4AA7D0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable When you are young and stressed up… When you are aged and never give up… Even if you have no erection problems Viagra would help you to make = better sex more often. Learn More Now ------=_NextPart_000_1B61BE_01C84A48.2C4AA7D0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20

When you are young and stressed = up…
When you are aged and never give up…
Even if you have no erection problems Viagra would help you to make = better=20 sex more often.
Learn More Now

------=_NextPart_000_1B61BE_01C84A48.2C4AA7D0-- From halliejm@dng.vnn.vn Sat Dec 29 13:32:40 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8gUC-0005xo-Ee for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 13:32:40 -0500 Received: from pool-72-92-240-105.prvdri.east.verizon.net ([72.92.240.105]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8gUB-0007wQ-Bh for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 13:32:39 -0500 Received: from [219.151.36.41] (helo=pprp) by pool-72-92-240-105.prvdri.east.verizon.net with smtp (Exim 4.62 (FreeBSD)) id 1J9ËYL-0004bE-E0; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 13:36:57 -0500 Message-ID: <000f01c84a49$2fc5a850$292497db@pprp> From: To: Subject: It's the New Year 2008 Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 13:32:37 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4029.2901 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4029.2901 X-Spam-Score: 4.6 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 01485d64dfa90b45a74269b3ca9d5574 It's the New Year http://familypostcards2008.com/ From christinemckenzieallison@gmail.com Sat Dec 29 17:52:19 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8kXT-0002ru-16; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 17:52:19 -0500 Received: from 89-244.dedicado.com.uy ([200.108.244.89]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8kXR-0005A2-Pz; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 17:52:18 -0500 X-Originating-IP: 167.108.16.200 by smtp.200.108.244.89; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 17:51:53 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Nicholas Castaneda" <16ng@ietf.org> Reply-To: "Nicholas Castaneda" <16ng@ietf.org> To: 16ng@ietf.org, 6lowpan@ietf.org, calsch-archive@ietf.org, capwap-archive@ietf.org, ccamp-archive@ietf.org, cfrg@ietf.org, cfrg-bounces@ietf.org, chair@ietf.org, pppext@ietf.org, pppext-request@ietf.org, proceedings@ietf.org, provreg-archive@ietf.org, pwe3@ietf.org, pwe3-chairs@ietf.org, pwe3-request@ietf.org, uri-review@ietf.org, uri-review-request@ietf.org, v6ops-archive@ietf.org, vpim@ietf.org Subject: December promo on w4tches Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 17:51:53 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Spam-Score: 1.7 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 08e48e05374109708c00c6208b534009 Winter is hitting and christmas are coming. Do you need perfect gift? 0rder high qual1ty repl1ca of w4tches, purses & bags from 2008! http://www.assdefgg.com/ From FrederickcontiguousFreeman@carnegieendowment.org Sat Dec 29 22:07:32 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8oWS-0003Lx-Ch; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 22:07:32 -0500 Received: from [190.40.81.143] (helo=contabilidad03.local.lan) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8oWS-00022h-1L; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 22:07:32 -0500 Received: from adobe by carnegieendowment.org with SMTP id OSmt2qP8LA for ; Sat, 29 Dec 2007 22:07:13 +0500 From: "Edwin Freeman" To: Cc: , Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8sAr-0000KB-A3 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Dec 2007 02:01:29 -0500 Received: from [201.226.121.76] (helo=[201.226.121.76]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8sAq-0005Yy-75 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Dec 2007 02:01:28 -0500 Received: by 10.74.45.236 with SMTP id NFKzxrjTWYJsP; Sun, 30 Dec 2007 01:55:01 -0500 (GMT) Received: by 192.168.199.5 with SMTP id qdgFOYyqBLXzMU.1940112441665; Sun, 30 Dec 2007 01:54:59 -0500 (GMT) Message-ID: <000d01c84ab0$e2e4bcc0$4c79e2c9@desktop> From: "randel Hiralal" To: Subject: syouhiry Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 01:54:56 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0005_01C84A86.FA0EB4C0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e5ba305d0e64821bf3d8bc5d3bb07228 ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C84A86.FA0EB4C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Good night ccamp-archive happy new viiiiiaaagggraaa year http://ageforest.com randel Hiralal ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C84A86.FA0EB4C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Good night ccamp-archive
happy new viiiiiaaagggraaa year
http://ageforest.com
randel Hiralal
------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C84A86.FA0EB4C0-- From curtislakeland5212154@yahoo.com Sun Dec 30 03:36:28 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8tem-0000PF-6T; Sun, 30 Dec 2007 03:36:28 -0500 Received: from p5b0777c8.dip.t-dialin.net ([91.7.119.200]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8tel-0006pS-HU; Sun, 30 Dec 2007 03:36:28 -0500 X-Originating-IP: 6.182.132.102 by smtp.91.7.119.200; Sun, 30 Dec 2007 03:36:25 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Goldie Cantu" <16ng@ietf.org> Reply-To: "Goldie Cantu" <16ng@ietf.org> To: 16ng@ietf.org Subject: New Year discount on w4tches yaFBI Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 03:36:25 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Spam-Score: 1.7 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 30ac594df0e66ffa5a93eb4c48bcb014 Newest 2008 repl1ca watch3s collection! 15% off in January and huge choose of repl1cas! http://www.assdefgg.com/ QjdZodrcRG7q2B From RussestuarineSpence@freelists.org Sun Dec 30 03:46:43 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8toh-0002ay-4D; Sun, 30 Dec 2007 03:46:43 -0500 Received: from pool-71-168-122-10.cncdnh.fios.verizon.net ([71.168.122.10] helo=puleo.dwightmt.priv) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8tog-0006xx-Sn; Sun, 30 Dec 2007 03:46:43 -0500 Received: from baffin by freelists.org with SMTP id 7vgqMgTRfl for ; Sun, 30 Dec 2007 03:48:11 +0500 From: "Jonas Case" To: Subject: Your own privater Vegas! Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 1.2 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 7bac9cb154eb5790ae3b2913587a40de We know how to treat our players - how about a $2400 welcome bonmus when you join? Huge progressive jackpots, slots, multi-hand, and single-hand blackjack. Come find out. If you're in the US or anywhere else, join your new casino paradise. http://bonusgoldcasino.net/ From dileksel@bgl.vsnl.net.in Sun Dec 30 09:17:08 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8yyS-0003ku-DW for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Dec 2007 09:17:08 -0500 Received: from u11-98.static.grapesc.cz ([82.100.11.98]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J8yyR-0000xy-Ms for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Dec 2007 09:17:08 -0500 Received: from jduok ([25.99.226.41]) by u11-98.static.grapesc.cz with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Sun, 30 Dec 2007 15:17:03 +0100 Message-ID: <000301c84aee$a68e3ab0$29e26319@jduok> From: To: Subject: A New 2008 Year song Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 15:17:03 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 X-Spam-Score: 2.0 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 01485d64dfa90b45a74269b3ca9d5574 New Hope and New Beginnings... http://freshcards2008.com/ From DouglasambassadorParker@writersupercenter.com Sun Dec 30 14:09:01 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J93Wv-00023e-Ow; Sun, 30 Dec 2007 14:09:01 -0500 Received: from [85.100.242.37] (helo=your2ff793dc30) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J93Wv-0005te-8G; Sun, 30 Dec 2007 14:09:01 -0500 Received: from passenger by writersupercenter.com with SMTP id iYNqIc9jGM for ; Sun, 30 Dec 2007 21:08:52 -0200 From: "Justin Bell" To: Cc: , Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J93ux-0005D4-6P for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Dec 2007 14:33:51 -0500 Received: from [151.74.196.118] (helo=[151.74.196.118]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J93uw-0006Lu-Ej for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Dec 2007 14:33:51 -0500 Received: by 10.84.159.191 with SMTP id AZkVYBXyMYoPT; Sun, 30 Dec 2007 20:33:56 +0100 (GMT) Received: by 192.168.195.199 with SMTP id odGqcqgXSBDxbm.0619543136268; Sun, 30 Dec 2007 20:33:54 +0100 (GMT) Message-ID: <000901c84b1a$e8368860$76c44a97@Server> From: "Ye Ravitsky" To: Subject: letkedeb Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 20:33:51 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0004_01C84B23.49FAF060" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Spam-Score: 2.1 (++) X-Scan-Signature: e5ba305d0e64821bf3d8bc5d3bb07228 ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C84B23.49FAF060 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi there ccamp-archive stay hard in 2008 with biagra http://horsecould.com Ye Ravitsky ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C84B23.49FAF060 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi there ccamp-archive
stay hard in 2008 with biagra
http://horsecould.com
Ye Ravitsky
------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C84B23.49FAF060-- From christian@p5com.com Sun Dec 30 15:47:41 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J954P-0003BF-Sf for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Dec 2007 15:47:41 -0500 Received: from line-122-4.gprs.westel900.net ([212.51.122.4] helo=212.51.122.4) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J954P-0007g6-9T for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Dec 2007 15:47:41 -0500 Message-ID: <000901c84b25$01308d62$60f6c497@layldpk> From: "ker merrell" To: Subject: Cartier Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 19:00:13 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0006_01C84B25.012B99E6" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 00e94c813bef7832af255170dca19e36 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C84B25.012B99E6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Prestige replicas =20 Most popular watches Rolex Sports Models•Chanel•Jacob & = Co•Patek•Philippe =20 =20 Most popular TIFFANY & CO. JEWERLY Tiffany & CO Necklace =20 Most popular PENS Mont Blanc Rollerball•Gucci Roller•St Dupont Ballpoint =20 Click here =09 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C84B25.012B99E6 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Prestige
replicas

Most popular = watches

Rolex Sports = Models•Chanel•Jacob & Co•Patek•Philippe

=20

Most popular TIFFANY & CO. = JEWERLY

Tiffany & CO Necklace

Most popular PENS

Mont Blanc = Rollerball•Gucci Roller•St Dupont Ballpoint
Click here =09
------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C84B25.012B99E6-- From FreddieirwinFletcher@fellerheating.com Sun Dec 30 16:03:29 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J95Jg-0004QB-W0; Sun, 30 Dec 2007 16:03:29 -0500 Received: from [91.146.191.121] (helo=vr41) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J95Jg-0007uE-Fc; Sun, 30 Dec 2007 16:03:28 -0500 Received: from collar by fellerheating.com with SMTP id jIkk0pTM7W for ; Sun, 30 Dec 2007 22:03:19 -0100 From: "Virgil Holt" To: , Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J97Em-0001yV-IC; Sun, 30 Dec 2007 18:06:32 -0500 Received: from 201-212-208-135.cab.prima.net.ar ([201.212.208.135] helo=agus) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J97Ej-0001yG-QW; Sun, 30 Dec 2007 18:06:30 -0500 Received: from fetus by boingboing.net with SMTP id ZoLNoynOUq for ; Sun, 30 Dec 2007 20:02:49 +0300 From: "Garland Vazquez" To: Subject: Free money free fun. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 3.2 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 7bac9cb154eb5790ae3b2913587a40de Best offer in gambling history . Our safe, secure games will get you smiling when you start seeing dollars pouring in. Play your favorite games from the comfort of your home, USA players ARE included! Play your favorite games from the comfort of your home, USA players ARE included! http://bonusgoldcasino.net/ From RobbywedlockChurch@howstuffworks.com Sun Dec 30 20:11:30 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J99Bi-00075P-9q; Sun, 30 Dec 2007 20:11:30 -0500 Received: from [190.42.250.139] (helo=tecsup) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J99Bh-0006Pn-PM; Sun, 30 Dec 2007 20:11:30 -0500 Received: from indecision by howstuffworks.com with SMTP id bbxRn5CEy6 for ; Sun, 30 Dec 2007 20:11:25 +0500 From: "Shelton Roach" To: , Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J99ID-0005ld-6c for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Dec 2007 20:18:13 -0500 Received: from [58.140.132.5] (helo=58.140.132.5) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J99IC-0006g4-Fv for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Dec 2007 20:18:13 -0500 Message-ID: <000901c84b4b$06925b13$b4560bb5@sdvsw> From: "Stalin" To: Subject: fw: Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 23:30:56 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0006_01C84B4B.068DDA58" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-Spam-Score: 4.7 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 52e1467c2184c31006318542db5614d5 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C84B4B.068DDA58 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable If you've ever tried to quit smoking before and failed, there's still = hope! It doesn't matter whether you've only been smoking a few weeks, or = if you've smoked for decades. LiveFree is an all natural anti smoking = patch that WILL WORK for you!..read more ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C84B4B.068DDA58 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable If you've ever tried to quit smoking before and failed, there's still = hope! It doesn't matter whether you've only been smoking a few weeks, or = if you've smoked for decades. LiveFree is an all natural anti smoking = patch that WILL WORK for you!.. read more ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C84B4B.068DDA58-- From YajunJoly@contempinc.com Sun Dec 30 21:04:24 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9A0u-0002kk-99 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Dec 2007 21:04:24 -0500 Received: from 65-23-214-115.prtc.net ([65.23.214.115]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9A0t-0007Kv-PL for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Dec 2007 21:04:24 -0500 Received: from store ([165.185.48.17] helo=store) by 65-23-214-115.prtc.net ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1PAtqi-000ESD-Ez for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Dec 2007 22:04:51 -0400 Message-ID: <89EA5CE0.D4857F02@contempinc.com> Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 22:04:17 -0400 From: "Yajun Joly" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ccamp-archive@ietf.org Subject: drieentw Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------000801000402040401070503" X-Spam-Score: 2.1 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8 --------------000801000402040401070503 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Big Dicks, Big Egos, No Risk! VPXL Herbal! http://sanloutye.com/ --------------000801000402040401070503 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Big Dicks, Big Egos, No Risk! VPXL Herbal! http://sanloutye.com/
--------------000801000402040401070503-- From karan740@sitipservice.net Mon Dec 31 00:16:15 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9D0Z-0003B6-Mc for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 00:16:15 -0500 Received: from n178-static-58.rssp-net.spb.ru ([80.93.178.58]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9D0Y-0001hV-PV for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 00:16:15 -0500 Received: from alexande-355b10 ([106.176.152.139]:29330 "EHLO alexande-355b10" smtp-auth: TLS-CIPHER: TLS-PEER-CN1: ) by [80.93.178.58] with ESMTP id S22EFYWBUQICPRGD (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Dec 2007 08:16:54 +0300 Message-ID: <000201c84b6c$49c0c360$3ab25d50@alexande355b10> From: "karan Fredrick" To: Subject: osovosta Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 08:16:24 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0003_01C84B85.6F0DFB60" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Spam-Score: 3.8 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 97adf591118a232206bdb5a27b217034 ------=_NextPart_000_0003_01C84B85.6F0DFB60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1251" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi ccamp-archive vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvviiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaggggggggggggggggrr= rrrrrrrraaaaaaaaaaa http://coverdistant.com karan Fredrick ------=_NextPart_000_0003_01C84B85.6F0DFB60 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1251" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi ccamp-archive
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvviiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaggggggggg= gggggggrrrrrrrrrraaaaaaaaaaa
http://coverdistant.com
karan Fredrick
------=_NextPart_000_0003_01C84B85.6F0DFB60-- From IlaconsanguineousBoykin@nicolasrius.com Mon Dec 31 04:09:38 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9GeQ-0006kv-92; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 04:09:38 -0500 Received: from auh-as5341.alshamil.net.ae ([217.164.117.7] helo=winbook.alshamil.net.ae) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9GeP-00054D-1y; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 04:09:38 -0500 Received: from grime by nicolasrius.com with SMTP id 0A5ZC6IFYV for ; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:09:23 -0400 From: "Rhoda Engle" To: Cc: , Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9HOO-0007KM-AK for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 04:57:08 -0500 Received: from [151.23.77.115] (helo=[151.23.77.115]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9HON-0005tS-QV for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 04:57:08 -0500 Received: from tony-3f6d79bbca ([164.198.100.71] helo=tony-3f6d79bbca) by [151.23.77.115] ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1ggdJg-000UHH-eE for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 10:57:23 +0100 Message-ID: <000701c84b93$8343bf30$734d1797@tony3f6d79bbca> From: "kevney Benny" To: Subject: teatimyn Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 10:57:11 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0008_01C84B9B.E5082730" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b19722fc8d3865b147c75ae2495625f2 ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C84B9B.E5082730 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Morning ccamp-archive meddds for you and seksuaaal pleeasssuuree for your girl http://roomnoon.com kevney Benny ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C84B9B.E5082730 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Morning ccamp-archive
meddds for you and seksuaaal pleeasssuuree for = your=20 girl
http://roomnoon.com
kevney Benny
------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C84B9B.E5082730-- From anne-mar@surecom.com Mon Dec 31 05:21:15 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9Hlj-000186-PP for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 05:21:15 -0500 Received: from [78.162.62.224] (helo=78.162.62.224) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9Hli-0006MV-QR for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 05:21:15 -0500 Message-ID: <000401c84b96$071450d2$a00cc880@hsraamnd> From: "emery samtaney" To: Subject: Re:acquiring a boner has never been easier, check out this Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 08:33:30 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-Spam-Score: 4.9 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 8ac499381112328dd60aea5b1ff596ea We congratulate on coming holidays Get ready for Christmas holidays with a new you http://beaverbonghits.com If you'll come and be my wife, From KittycourtroomKeyes@unfccc.int Mon Dec 31 06:14:46 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9IbW-0002sR-Fe; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 06:14:46 -0500 Received: from 218-160-247-246.dynamic.hinet.net ([218.160.247.246] helo=mychat376681a5.domain) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9IbT-0000zb-WC; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 06:14:44 -0500 Received: from hearse by unfccc.int with SMTP id DcTqu68Y0b for ; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 19:20:29 -0800 From: "Deann Sams" To: Subject: Our safe, secure games Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 3.4 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 7bac9cb154eb5790ae3b2913587a40de USA players too! Download and GO! We're serious about fun. We give out BONUSES to anyone who joins. USA players too! Download and GO! http://worldacasino.cn/ From DragomirOittinen@psychicmodem.com Mon Dec 31 06:56:36 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9JG0-0001H6-0Z for ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 06:56:36 -0500 Received: from [87.231.78.34] (helo=FR-LHA-C3-13-087231078034.chello.fr) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9JFz-0001xd-G0 for ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 06:56:35 -0500 Received: by 10.83.84.172 with SMTP id tlUcEasjwYcom; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:56:39 +0100 (GMT) Received: by 192.168.32.160 with SMTP id wOScEHWmbEgaoB.5699654819741; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:56:37 +0100 (GMT) Message-ID: <48C7FE3D.BE722BF9@psychicmodem.com> Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:56:34 +0100 From: "Dragomir Oittinen" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ccamp-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: RE: Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="koi8-r"; reply-type=original X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8ac499381112328dd60aea5b1ff596ea Is it time to restore your sexual activity? No one can help you better than Canadian Health&Care Mall. http://amopriatem.info/ From LelandblessFitzgerald@theeagle.com Mon Dec 31 09:46:02 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9Lty-0006EW-3v; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 09:46:02 -0500 Received: from [201.230.198.81] (helo=yercco) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9Ltx-0006YF-Gw; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 09:46:01 -0500 Received: from nape by theeagle.com with SMTP id jEEe15Lxqr for ; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 09:45:57 +0500 From: "Rufus Tyler" To: Subject: When you join? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d17f825e43c9aed4fd65b7edddddec89 How about the best service around? Our safe, secure games will get you smiling when you start seeing dollars pouring in. Come find out. Get to know your new casino home! http://worldbcasino.cn/ From becky.nogle@shenergy.com.cn Mon Dec 31 11:17:36 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9NKa-0001yS-1u for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:17:36 -0500 Received: from [222.123.174.154] (helo=faazfti) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9NKW-0000Or-VX for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:17:34 -0500 Received: (qmail 23841 invoked from network); Mon, 31 Dec 2007 23:17:25 +0700 Received: from unknown (HELO vpezp) (44.207.72.50) by faazfti with SMTP; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 23:17:25 +0700 Message-ID: <000901c84bc8$a1b7f870$3248cf2c@vpezp> From: To: Subject: Dance to the New Year tune Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 23:17:25 +0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="windows-1250"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4927.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4927.1200 X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 01485d64dfa90b45a74269b3ca9d5574 Happy New Year To You! http://hellosanta2008.com/ From FabiangePreston@breitbart.com Mon Dec 31 11:39:06 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9NfN-0007fo-VJ; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:39:05 -0500 Received: from 84.122.96.166.dyn.user.ono.com ([84.122.96.166] helo=salvador41e67d) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9NfN-0000v6-Dc; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:39:05 -0500 Received: from alway by breitbart.com with SMTP id MqcIH164DP for ; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 17:38:45 -0100 From: "Avery Carey" To: , Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9NtD-00073g-Hd for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:53:23 -0500 Received: from p57a645ac.dip.t-dialin.net ([87.166.69.172]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9NtD-0001E9-06 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:53:23 -0500 Message-Id: <20071231065329.30150.qmail@p57A645AC.dip.t-dialin.net> To: Subject: RE: December 74% OFF From: Doctor Joey Stapleton MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html;charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 4.0 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 5a9a1bd6c2d06a21d748b7d0070ddcb8

Click to buy Viagra for as low as $1.53

From AldobernieceCantrell@verifiedvotingfoundation.org Mon Dec 31 13:34:10 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9PSk-0002WO-Kr; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:34:10 -0500 Received: from pool-71-243-90-181.bos.east.verizon.net ([71.243.90.181] helo=a4n4e7.myhome.westell.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9PSk-0003Za-4n; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:34:10 -0500 Received: from archival by verifiedvotingfoundation.org with SMTP id mUAJNOeWSL for ; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:32:42 +0500 From: "Lucien Mckay" To: , Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9PjL-0003bv-VA for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:51:20 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9PjL-0003uj-KH for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:51:19 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J9PaB-000JaQ-Iw for ccamp-data@psg.com; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 18:41:51 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE, RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [216.82.254.243] (helo=mail203.messagelabs.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J9PZg-000JXP-9Y for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 18:41:36 +0000 X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: dbrungard@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-8.tower-203.messagelabs.com!1199126477!1931671!1 X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.14.2; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.54] Received: (qmail 459 invoked from network); 31 Dec 2007 18:41:18 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp7.sbc.com (HELO mlpi135.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.54) by server-8.tower-203.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 31 Dec 2007 18:41:18 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpi135.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id lBVIfH3G016064 for ; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:41:17 -0500 Received: from OCCLUST04EVS1.ugd.att.com (ocst07.ugd.att.com [135.38.164.12]) by mlpi135.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id lBVIfC0D016041 for ; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:41:12 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C84BDC.B759AB2C" Subject: ccamp minutes Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:41:11 -0500 Message-ID: <449B2580D802A443A923DABF3EAB82AF0FE08756@OCCLUST04EVS1.ugd.att.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: ccamp minutes Thread-Index: AchL3LavtAcbaFe7SBuEfoCOVPhztQ== From: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A, ATTLABS" To: Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 5a9a1bd6c2d06a21d748b7d0070ddcb8 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C84BDC.B759AB2C Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi CCAMP, =20 The minutes have been uploaded: http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07dec/minutes/ccamp.htm =20 Let us know if any changes/additions. =20 Happy 2008! Adrian and Deborah =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C84BDC.B759AB2C Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi=20 CCAMP,
 
The = minutes have=20 been uploaded:
http://= www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07dec/minutes/ccamp.htm
=
 
Let us = know if any=20 changes/additions.
 
Happy=20 2008!
Adrian = and=20 Deborah
 
------_=_NextPart_001_01C84BDC.B759AB2C-- From owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Mon Dec 31 15:03:53 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9QrZ-00011Y-0C for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:03:53 -0500 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9QrX-000674-CO for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:03:52 -0500 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J9Qij-000PLk-Fg for ccamp-data@psg.com; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 19:54:45 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE, RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [216.82.254.243] (helo=mail203.messagelabs.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1J9QiE-000PIt-3T for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 19:54:30 +0000 X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: dbrungard@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-3.tower-203.messagelabs.com!1199130852!1928281!1 X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.14.2; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.54] Received: (qmail 22352 invoked from network); 31 Dec 2007 19:54:12 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp7.sbc.com (HELO mlpi135.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.54) by server-3.tower-203.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 31 Dec 2007 19:54:12 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpi135.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id lBVJsBci018840 for ; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:54:11 -0500 Received: from OCCLUST04EVS1.ugd.att.com (ocst07.ugd.att.com [135.38.164.12]) by mlpi135.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id lBVJs8R4018810 for ; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:54:08 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C84BE6.E7D709DF" Subject: RE: ccamp minutes Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:54:07 -0500 Message-ID: <449B2580D802A443A923DABF3EAB82AF0FE08795@OCCLUST04EVS1.ugd.att.com> In-Reply-To: <449B2580D802A443A923DABF3EAB82AF0FE08756@OCCLUST04EVS1.ugd.att.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: ccamp minutes Thread-Index: AchL3LavtAcbaFe7SBuEfoCOVPhztQACaSHQ References: <449B2580D802A443A923DABF3EAB82AF0FE08756@OCCLUST04EVS1.ugd.att.com> From: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A, ATTLABS" To: Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: e1b0e72ff1bbd457ceef31828f216a86 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C84BE6.E7D709DF Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Try this version - there were an excessive number of typos introduced in the other uploaded version: http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07dec/minutes/ccamp.txt =20 And thanks to our note takers - Dimitri, Martin, and Dan! ________________________________ From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A, ATTLABS Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 1:41 PM To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: ccamp minutes Hi CCAMP, =20 The minutes have been uploaded: http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07dec/minutes/ccamp.htm =20 Let us know if any changes/additions. =20 Happy 2008! Adrian and Deborah =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C84BE6.E7D709DF Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Try this version - there were an excessive = number=20 of typos introduced in the other uploaded = version:
http://= www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07dec/minutes/ccamp.txt
=
 
And thanks to our note takers - Dimitri, = Martin, and=20 Dan!

From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org=20 [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of BRUNGARD, DEBORAH = A,=20 ATTLABS
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 1:41 PM
To:=20 ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: ccamp minutes

Hi=20 CCAMP,
 
The = minutes have=20 been uploaded:
http://= www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07dec/minutes/ccamp.htm
=
 
Let us = know if any=20 changes/additions.
 
Happy=20 2008!
Adrian = and=20 Deborah
 
------_=_NextPart_001_01C84BE6.E7D709DF-- From LoisaccompanistPryor@wordnavigator.com Mon Dec 31 15:31:30 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9RII-0007LO-TI; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:31:30 -0500 Received: from [200.106.93.198] (helo=usuarioe426778) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9RII-0005sY-EZ; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:31:30 -0500 Received: from sheik by wordnavigator.com with SMTP id aVxf3MblD4 for ; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:31:19 +0500 From: "Phyllis Pryor" To: Cc: , Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9TFi-0003T1-B5; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 17:36:58 -0500 Received: from [88.224.119.89] (helo=mert16.home) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9TFh-0008Nu-SW; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 17:36:58 -0500 Received: from alliance by mrdowling.com with SMTP id Y3mbfuT1AA for ; Tue, 1 Jan 2008 00:36:44 -0200 From: "Verna Huggins" To: Subject: Hey, start seeing dollars pouring in. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 3.3 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 7bac9cb154eb5790ae3b2913587a40de Get $2400 you download our casino. Come find out. Visit and start seeing the dollars coming. When YOU WIN, we win! http://bonusgoldcasino.net/ From PaigedonkeyMcmullen@franciscodaum.com Mon Dec 31 19:47:05 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9VHd-0008Fk-Tf; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 19:47:05 -0500 Received: from [201.170.196.220] (helo=computer6) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9VHd-00026i-5G; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 19:47:05 -0500 Received: from prefab by franciscodaum.com with SMTP id gZV6ofS5wt for ; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 16:46:47 +0800 From: "Rachelle Mcmullen" To: , Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9XVP-0004fL-52; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 22:09:27 -0500 Received: from pool-68-237-249-19.ny325.east.verizon.net ([68.237.249.19] helo=arielmedrano.myhome.westell.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J9XVO-0004JT-IM; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 22:09:26 -0500 Received: from bespeak by chipmunks.com with SMTP id wuYTl5B0UW for ; Mon, 31 Dec 2007 22:09:21 +0500 From: "Berta Hare" To: , Thread-Topic: ccamp minutes Thread-Index: AchL3LavtAcbaFe7SBuEfoCOVPhztQACaSHQ From: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A, ATTLABS" To: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C84BE6.E7D709DF Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Try this version - there were an excessive number of typos introduced in the other uploaded version: http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07dec/minutes/ccamp.txt =20 And thanks to our note takers - Dimitri, Martin, and Dan! ________________________________ From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A, ATTLABS Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 1:41 PM To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: ccamp minutes Hi CCAMP, =20 The minutes have been uploaded: http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07dec/minutes/ccamp.htm =20 Let us know if any changes/additions. =20 Happy 2008! Adrian and Deborah =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C84BE6.E7D709DF Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Try this version - there were an excessive = number=20 of typos introduced in the other uploaded = version:
http://= www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07dec/minutes/ccamp.txt
=
 
And thanks to our note takers - Dimitri, = Martin, and=20 Dan!

From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org=20 [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of BRUNGARD, DEBORAH = A,=20 ATTLABS
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 1:41 PM
To:=20 ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: ccamp minutes

Hi=20 CCAMP,
 
The = minutes have=20 been uploaded:
http://= www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07dec/minutes/ccamp.htm
=
 
Let us = know if any=20 changes/additions.
 
Happy=20 2008!
Adrian = and=20 Deborah
 
------_=_NextPart_001_01C84BE6.E7D709DF-- Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 18:43:55 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C84BDC.B759AB2C" Subject: ccamp minutes Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:41:11 -0500 Message-ID: <449B2580D802A443A923DABF3EAB82AF0FE08756@OCCLUST04EVS1.ugd.att.com> Thread-Topic: ccamp minutes Thread-Index: AchL3LavtAcbaFe7SBuEfoCOVPhztQ== From: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A, ATTLABS" To: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C84BDC.B759AB2C Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi CCAMP, =20 The minutes have been uploaded: http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07dec/minutes/ccamp.htm =20 Let us know if any changes/additions. =20 Happy 2008! Adrian and Deborah =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C84BDC.B759AB2C Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi=20 CCAMP,
 
The = minutes have=20 been uploaded:
http://= www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07dec/minutes/ccamp.htm
=
 
Let us = know if any=20 changes/additions.
 
Happy=20 2008!
Adrian = and=20 Deborah
 
------_=_NextPart_001_01C84BDC.B759AB2C-- Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 18:58:57 +0000 Message-ID: <04fe01c84983$45362960$0501a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "David Ward" , "Tim Polk" Cc: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A, ATTLABS" , "Kohei Shiomoto" , "Ross Callon" , Subject: Your Discusses and Comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interwork-fmwk Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 18:55:48 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, I think we have proposals to resolve your issues with draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interwork-fmwk. Can you confirm that they would meet your needs? Thanks, Adrian === Tim Polk Discuss "This is a discuss discuss. Personally, I find the phased migration model terrifying. Selective introduction of features seems like a great opportunity to perform a DoS attack on your own network. Are there features of GMPLS that assume the existence of other features for consistent operation? It seems like you are developing your own interim internal "standards" that need to be self-consistent. Is this really a good thing for the IETF to recommend?" Ross is right that the intention of CCAMP in this I-D was to not recommend the phased model (although it should be noted that this is exactly what the vendors are doing)-: So section 4.3 is a fine place to add additional warnings as follows... > Interoperability concerns though are exacerbated by this migration > model, unless all LSRs in the network are updated simultaneously and > there is a clear understanding of which subset of features are to be > included in the hybrid LSRs. Interworking between a hybrid LSR and an > unchanged MPLS LSR would put the hybrid LSR in the role of a GMPLS > LSR as described in the previous sections and puts the unchanged LSR > in the role of an MPLS LSR. The potential for different hybrids > within the network will complicate matters considerably. This model is, therefore, only appropriate for use when the set of new features to be deployed is well known and limited, and where there is a clear understanding of and agreement on this set of features by the network operators of the ISP(s) involved as well as all vendors whose equipment will be involved in the migration. === Tim Polk Comment "Section 5, Paragraph 4 first sentence currently reads: The second strategy for PSC and non-PSC networks is to migrate from the PSC network to GMPLS, first, and then enable GMPLS within the non-PSC network. I suggest: The second strategy is to migrate from the PSC network to GMPLS, first, and then enable GMPLS within the non-PSC network." This should actually read... The second strategy is to migrate the PSC network to GMPLS first, and then enable GMPLS within the non-PSC network." === Dave Ward Comment "There is no mention of using PCEs for this functionality." PCE could fit usefully into the Island model and the Integrated model. It would not play any valuable role in the Phased model. I think the best place to add a reference would be in section 5.1 since PCE may provide a component in the migration toolkit. This would not be as strong as a recommendation to use PCE since it is clear that the use of PCE is not a prerequisite for migration. So we could add... 5.1.4. Path Computation Element The Path Computation Element (PCE) [RFC4655] may provide an additional tool to aid MPLS to GMPLS migration. If a layered network approach (Section 5.1.1) is used, PCEs may be used to facilitate the computation of paths for LSPs in the different layers [PCE-INTER-LAYER]. And to section 12.2 [RFC4655] A. Farrel, JP. Vasseur and J. Ash, "A Path Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, August 2006. [PCE-INTER-LAYER] Oki, E., Le Roux , J-L,. and Farrel, A., "Framework for PCE-Based Inter-Layer MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering," draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-frwk, work in progress. Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:25:38 +0000 Message-ID: <047b01c8495d$118600c0$0501a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Subject: Updated: Draft response to the OIF Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:14:52 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, After some off-line emails, here is an updated draft response to http://www.olddog.co.uk/oif2007_382_01.pdf The changes are in the answer to question 3) Any further comments? Cheers, Adrian === To : Lyndon Ong, OIF TC Chair Cc: Ross Callon, IETF Routing Area Director David Ward, IETF Routing Area Director Subject: Response to Your Questions about GMPLS Protocol Usage Dear Lyndon, Thanks for your communication dated 29th November 2007 and your subsequent email exchange with clarifications. Please find below responses from CCAMP experts to the questions you posed. May we take this oportunity to stress that we are open to receiving such questions in a less formal way either directly or through the CCAMP mailing list, and may be able to provide timely responses during the course of your testing events. > 1) One of the features provided in the OIF UNI 2.0 is the ability to > non-disruptively modify service attributes associated with an LSP. The > modification of the service attributes is limited to LSPs that were > initiated using Shared Explicit filter style. Modification is performed > by signaling a new LSP that utilizes the same Tunnel ID as the original > LSP but with the new service parameters. Once the new LSP state is > established, the original LSP state is removed. There are two distinct options for modifying an LSP. The first is "in-place" modification where a new trigger Path message is sent for an existing LSP. The second is the "make-before-break" approach to tunnel/service modification first introduced in RFC 3209. You appear to be refering to the latter case since you mention a new LSP. > Non-disruptive modification was demonstrated in the 2007 > interoperability test by modifying the bandwidth of an LSP realized by a > SONET/SDH VCAT group. In the process of testing, a number of questions > arose regarding the RESV message flow. These questions included: > > - How many RESV messages are expected to be generated? Is it one since > the resources in use by both LSPs are the same, or two since the LSPs > are handled through separate signaling sessions. In make-before-break, each LSP is signaled independently. Per LSP Resv messages should be expected. Assuming the old LSP is in-place at the time of signaling the new LSP, and only one Path message is issued, then only one Resv would be expected. That is, a Resv for the new LSP, but no further Resv for the existing LSP. When the old LSP is also modified as part of the make-before-break, e.g., to update administrative status prior to alarm-free tear-down, then a Resv message on the old LSP may also be generated. > - What is the bandwidth amount that should be reflected in the RESV > messages? If separate RESV messages are generated for both LSPs, is it > the bandwidth requested in the corresponding PATH message? Or is it > the actual bandwidth being provided by the connection at the time the > RESV message is generated? According to RFC 4606: For a particular sender in a session, the contents of the FLOWSPEC object received in a Resv message SHOULD be identical to the contents of the SENDER_TSPEC object received in the corresponding Path message. If the objects do not match, a ResvErr message with a "Traffic Control Error/Bad Flowspec value" error SHOULD be generated. Again, in make-before-break, each LSP is signaled independently. > In the interop test both approaches were observed. To facilitate the > subsequent demonstration, receivers were expected to handle both cases. > > 2) In the process of testing, we found that not all implementations > included Explicit Route Objects (ERO) in PATH messages when performing > graceful deletion, even though earlier PATH messages for the LSP had > included an ERO. For some intermediate node implementations, the lack of > the ERO was seen as removing the 'pinned' nature of the connection, > causing the node to interpret the PATH message as requiring a new path > computation which may end up using a different route. Other > implementations utilized the Session and Sender Template to relate the > received PATH message with the existing connection thereby identifying > the path the message should be forwarded on. This approach was taken by > these implementations since inclusion of an ERO is not mandatory. We > would appreciate CCAMP's thoughts on what the behavior should be. As described in RFC 2205, Path and Resv messages are idempotent. This means that any Path message reflects full state, and differences between one Path message and a subsequent Path message may be reasonably considered an explicit change. Therefore, while there is no explicit requirement stated in RFC 3473, it is typical to only modify the Admin Status Object in Path messages sent in connection to RFC 3473 section 7.2.1. deletion procedures (i.e. to include the full ERO as on previous Path messages). It may be observed, however, that while an implementation detecting a change in ERO (such as the removal of the ERO) may legitimately opt to reroute, that implementation should also note the change in Admin Status associated with the graceful deletion and may "assume" that such a reroute would be a waste of time. Further, in a transport system, implementaitons should only perform local reroutes (deviating from in-place LSPs) with extreme caution since these risk impacting traffic. > 3) In the process of testing, we found cases where the update of a > link's attributes (i.e. available capacity) was not being done by > advertising an updated LSA using the same LSAid, but by flushing the old > LSA followed by generation of a new LSA with a new LSAid. Since the > LSAid for Opaque LSAs is not tied to the resource being advertised > (i.e. the resource is identified using TLVs in the Opaque LSA, not using > the LSAid as is done with IPv4 OSPF LSAs), this can cause a problem as > it causes the order that the LSAs are processed to become important. We > would appreciate CCAMP's thoughts on what the behavior should be. The OSPF WG, is the proper WG to respond to this as they are the authoritative source on OSPF technology. From our perspective, RFC 2328 dictates the use of the same Link State ID when advertising a change in information about a link, and RFC 3630 states "The LSA ID has no topological significance." While it is certainly possible to advertise a change via issuing an LSA with a new Link State ID and flushing old state, from the perspective of OSPF this is not a change in link state, rather a completely new link. In fact, when there are key changes to the information advertised about a link (for example, a change to the Link Type or Link ID), the advertising router should recognise that these changes represent the advertisement of a new link and should use a new LSA with a new Link State ID. However, where the change is clearly a change to the link state of an existing link, the advertising router should use the same Link State ID. > 4) Finally, in the process of testing, we found cases where established > connections were deleted based on node restart procedures in RFC > 3473. R163 of the OIF Carrier requirements (liaised to IETF in 12/2006) > states deletion of established connections as the result of control > plane failure (including node restart) shall not occur. It has been > identified this could also occur when a number of cascaded nodes restart > at the same time. We would appreciate CCAMP's thoughts on ways to > prevent deletion of established connections from occurring when a node > restarts. Without specific details, it's impossible to address the found cases or to identify if they were due to implementation or specification issues. More broadly, RFC 3473 does not require the removal of forwarding state, even in the case of state synchronization errors, and implementations may take different action (such as reporting the condition to a management station). An implementation at a restarting node may consider that the lack of control plane state at its neighbor indicates that the removal of forwarding plane state has been attempted through the control plane while the restarting node was down and should follow local policy in determining how to react. We would also like to direct you to RFC 5063 and draft-ietf-ccamp-gr-description which may provide additional relevant information. We hope this addresses your questions. Best regards, Adrian Farrel and Deborah Brungard IETF CCAMP working group co-chairs Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 20:23:04 +0000 Message-ID: <01fc01c8440e$d9db2db0$0501a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "Greg Bernstein" Cc: Subject: Re: Liaison received from ITU-T on T-MPLS ring protection Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 20:19:13 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Greg, I see what you are saying. At the moment, however, there seems to have been no decision about a specific control plane for T-MPLS. There are a couple of ways this could be relevant to us, however... - Ring protection techniques could be used in a PSC network under the control of GMPLS. That is, GMPLS could be used to set up ring protection in a PSC network. I would want to see the requirements for this, however, since GMPLS appears to provide plenty of alternatives for protection and restoration it may be an uphill struggle to demonstrate why ring protection is beneficial in a PSC that is more like a mesh. - A GMPLS network may operate over rings that have underlying ring protection. In this case the ring protection provides link-level protection, and we know how to handle that. I am a little sceptical about the idea of mixing ring protection with end-to-end provisioning. Since MPLS gives us an easy mechanism for hierarchy, I don't see why we wouldn't traverse an MPLS protected ring as a single hop in an end-to-end LSP. Anyway... I think that the current work in the ITU-T for T-MPLS ring protection still only refers to the data plane. Cheers, Adrian ----- Original Message ----- From: "Greg Bernstein" To: "Adrian Farrel" Cc: Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 5:32 PM Subject: Re: Liaison received from ITU-T on T-MPLS ring protection > Hi all, it seems to me there maybe some implications for GMPLS based on > previous experience with "software based 4F-BLSRs", that is rings that are > setup on portions of a mesh network to provide fast redundant protection > using SDH like ring switching mechanisms. > These types of rings which are applicable to a number of layers (optical, > SDH, whatever) have traditionally had interoperability problems across > vendors. This has typically involved how to share the "ring map" > information (see section 17.1 of the liaison attachment). In addition > "nodes" need information on connections added and dropped so they can > prevent mis-connection (the "squelching" process). > > Obviously one way to keep track of a ring map is to "mark" a link as > belonging to a particular ring and distribute this info via GMPLS routing. > > Regards > > Greg B. > > > Adrian Farrel wrote: >> Hi, >> >> We received a liaison from the ITU-T that reads as follows... >> >> SG15 Q9 has nearly completed its work on a recommendation for >> T-MPLS Ring Protection - G.8132. It is targeted to consent this >> new recommendation in the next SG15 plenary meeting scheduled >> for Feb., 2008. >> >> We have attached the latest draft for your information and >> comments. >> >> We are requested to comment by 11th February 2008. >> >> At first glance, this work appears to concentrate on the data plane only >> and so is not within our scope. The MPLS working group was also copied >> and can handle any issues concerning the MPLS data plane. >> >> As always, you can see all incoming and outgoing communications for CCAMP >> at www.olddog.co.uk/ccamp.htm >> >> Thanks, >> Adrian >> >> >> > > -- > =================================================== > Dr Greg Bernstein, Grotto Networking (510) 573-2237 > > > Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 15:37:43 +0000 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 To: i-d-announce@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Message-Id: Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:10:02 -0500 Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: I-D Action:draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-eval-05.txt Reply-To: internet-drafts@ietf.org --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Common Control and Measurement Plane Working Group of the IETF. Title : Evaluation of existing GMPLS Protocols against Multi Layer and Multi Region Networks (MLN/MRN) Author(s) : J. Le Roux, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-eval-05.txt Pages : 16 Date : 2007-12-17 This document provides an evaluation of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) protocols and mechanisms against the requirements for Multi-Layer Networks (MLN) and Multi-Region Networks (MRN). In addition, this document identifies areas where additional protocol extensions or procedures are needed to satisfy these requirements, and provides guidelines for potential extensions.Conventions used in this document The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-eval-05.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-eval-05.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-eval-05.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2007-12-17160517.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-eval-05.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-eval-05.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2007-12-17160517.I-D\@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ I-D-Announce mailing list I-D-Announce@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce --NextPart-- Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 19:04:11 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references:x-google-sender-auth; bh=hCYRux0Pbg5pmGlmA1E/Ld8rCGxCQ7gP+GiMTTOSiBI=; b=NiGXwZOL+0syC1GVFaL/NtV+5711EUwqTSe32kEPPoQfYjVLQEa7GemMn7nB6JwdCiv0ccR9i2VkL825q0jya0Mo0rlZuJlu/ljwh/0QFFlL155e5qDZ4c6HvlTi8HXInY7vKOrA0uPrywYV3Ea8czj+u1c57zi4gdskabXQwMk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=GInkc4+fCFGwsLLS+B5SZ0ffbMin9u3pLobwSc07rKyc7Q51pmYPxY/RCuH2PxK+eJHJFmk8bFErHrCDktHx2d9BSy0b4C8fK+FEwVwmePoooJ59PYhCnBezX8g7SudWzV04WjRKsopjergHG0X8GxUm/vkDNBOpsD1C7e98VOA= Message-ID: Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 10:53:51 -0800 From: "Richard Rabbat" To: "Greg Bernstein" Subject: Re: On Labels for Wavelength Switched Optical Networks... Cc: ccamp MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_23283_11296360.1198176832020" ------=_Part_23283_11296360.1198176832020 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline hey Greg, When you have a minute, can you send out the proposal for the slight tweak? I put these together to make things simpler and they're perfect :) Richard. On Dec 20, 2007 7:39 AM, Greg Bernstein wrote: > Hi folks I've gotten a couple of questions on my note, so I wanted to > clarify. The essence of the discussion below is to show that no > significantly simpler method exists to specify a global label for lambdas > (in either frequency or wavelength) and that the label of [Otani] has the > advantage of being based on a widely accepted and used standard. I do not > think that we need to modify the label of [Otani] in any significant way, > though I have discussed with the authors a slight "tweak" to the CWDM format > to more closely mirror the DWDM format. > > Regards > > Greg B. > > > Greg Bernstein wrote: > > Hi folks, at the Vancouver meeting the lambda label format of Otani, et. > al. draft-otani-ccamp-gmpls-lambda-labels-01.txt[Otani] was presented for a second time and a few new issues seemed to > arise. I'm writing this note to see if we can resolve these on the list so > this work can move forward, since the label format is valuable, in general, > to the control of wavelength switched optical networks (WSON). > > First, a general 32 bit lambda label has been defined in RFC3471. This > previous label does not directly relate to either the wavelength or > frequency of the light used in a lambda LSP in a standardized way (folks can > use the 32 bits as they see fit). > To come up with a completely general "lambda label" one could/should > define both a (i) wavelength label specified in meters and (ii) a frequency > label specified in Hertz (Hz). These could be specified either with a 32 > bit IEEE floating point number or via a suitable 32 bit integer by suitably > adjusting the base units. We could represent the frequency via a 32 bit > integer in MHz, then a 193.1THz light source could be characterized by the > integer 193,100,000. Similarly we could represent the wavelength label via a > 32 bit integer in pico meters (10-12 meters), then a 1550nm wavelength could > be characterized by the integer 1,550,000. > > Now any of the previous formats could be used with the 32 bit lambda > label already defined. The problem here is to pick a format for > interoperability and compatibility with potentially common wavelength > switched control operations. > Issues with the previously mentioned formats: > > (a) While floating point numbers provide great flexibility, as a label > they have issues when it comes to comparison operations. > > (b) An integer format with a suitably scaled exponent is relatively > simple and just leaves the choice of "exponent" to be decided. > > (c) Neither format contains any "context" information about the WDM > system in general. > > The format proposed in [Otani]. avoids the above three issues and enhances > common control plane operations as follows: > > (a) The format is integer based, hence avoids issues with floating > point comparisons. > > (b) The format is based on the widely recognized ITU-T standard grids > (ITU-T G.694.1 and .2) and fosters interoperability more than potentially > any other choice. > > (c) The ITU-T grids come in various widths and hence have an inherent > growth path. > > (d) The ITU-T grids come in both frequency (G.694.1) and wavelength ( > G.694.2) flavored versions an both are incorporated in the [Otani] label > format. > > (e) The format includes information on the grid spacing which is > important WDM context information useful in many label selection processes. > For example a tunable laser associated with a 50GHz spacing WDM system > could specify acceptable label range via the inclusive range label set > mechanism. Note that only those frequencies (labels) that fall on the > grid are supported and not intermediate frequencies. > > > At the CCAMP WG meeting in Vancouver it was pointed out (by Lou Berger) > that since a lambda label already exists and that existing implementations > may make use of it that the proposed label of [Otani] would be better off > referred to as a "G.694 label". With such a change I think that this label > format (and accompanying draft) should move forward as a working group > document. > > Comments, suggestions, issues? > > Regards > > Greg B. > > -- > =================================================== > Dr Greg Bernstein, Grotto Networking (510) 573-2237 > > > > > -- > =================================================== > Dr Greg Bernstein, Grotto Networking (510) 573-2237 > > > ------=_Part_23283_11296360.1198176832020 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline hey Greg,
When you have a minute, can you send out the proposal for the slight tweak?
I put these together to make things simpler and they're perfect :)
Richard.

On Dec 20, 2007 7:39 AM, Greg Bernstein < gregb@grotto-networking.com> wrote:
Hi folks I've gotten a couple of questions on my note, so I wanted to clarify. The essence of the discussion below is to show that  no significantly simpler method exists to specify a global label for lambdas (in either frequency or wavelength) and that the label of [Otani] has the advantage of being based on a widely accepted and used standard.  I do not think that we need to modify the label of [Otani] in any significant way, though I have discussed with the authors a slight "tweak" to the CWDM format to more closely mirror the DWDM format.

Regards

Greg B.


Greg Bernstein wrote:

Hi folks, at the Vancouver meeting the lambda label format of Otani, et. al. draft-otani-ccamp-gmpls-lambda-labels-01.txt [Otani] was presented for a second time and a few new issues seemed to arise. I'm writing this note to see if we can resolve these on the list so this work can move forward, since the label format is valuable, in general, to the control of wavelength switched optical networks (WSON).

First, a general 32 bit lambda label has been defined in RFC3471.  This previous label does not directly relate to either the wavelength or frequency of the light used in a lambda LSP in a standardized way (folks can use the 32 bits as they see fit).
To come up with a completely general "lambda label" one could/should define both a (i) wavelength label specified in meters and (ii) a frequency label specified in Hertz (Hz).  These could be specified either with a 32 bit IEEE floating point number or via a suitable 32 bit integer by suitably adjusting the base units.  We could represent the frequency via a 32 bit integer in MHz, then a 193.1THz light source could be characterized by the integer 193,100,000. Similarly we could represent the wavelength label via a 32 bit integer in pico meters (10-12 meters), then a 1550nm wavelength could be characterized by the integer 1,550,000.

 Now any of the previous formats could be used with the 32 bit lambda label already defined.  The problem here is to pick a format for interoperability and compatibility with potentially common wavelength switched control operations.
Issues with the previously mentioned formats:

(a)     While floating point numbers provide great flexibility, as a label they have issues when it comes to comparison operations. 

(b)    An integer format with a suitably scaled exponent is relatively simple and just leaves the choice of "exponent" to be decided.

(c)     Neither format contains any "context" information about the WDM system in general.

The format proposed in [Otani]. avoids the above three issues and enhances common control plane operations as follows:

(a)     The format is integer based, hence avoids issues with floating point comparisons.

(b)    The format is based on the widely recognized ITU-T standard grids (ITU-T G.694.1 and .2) and fosters interoperability more than potentially any other choice. 

(c)     The ITU-T grids come in various widths and hence have an inherent growth path.

(d)    The ITU-T grids come in both frequency (G.694.1) and wavelength (G.694.2) flavored versions an both are incorporated in the [Otani] label format.

(e)     The format includes information on the grid spacing which is important WDM context information useful in many label selection processes.  For example a tunable laser associated with a 50GHz spacing WDM system could specify acceptable label range via the inclusive range label set mechanism.  Note that only those frequencies (labels) that fall on the grid are supported and not intermediate frequencies.

 
At the CCAMP WG meeting in Vancouver it was pointed out (by Lou Berger) that since a lambda label already exists and that existing implementations may make use of it that the proposed label of [Otani] would be better off referred to as a "G.694 label". With such a change I think that this label format (and accompanying draft) should move forward as a working group document.

Comments, suggestions, issues?

Regards

Greg B.

-- 
===================================================
Dr Greg Bernstein, Grotto Networking (510) 573-2237

  

-- 
===================================================
Dr Greg Bernstein, Grotto Networking (510) 573-2237

------=_Part_23283_11296360.1198176832020-- Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:35:17 +0000 Message-ID: <476AA711.3090905@grotto-networking.com> Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 09:32:01 -0800 From: Greg Bernstein User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adrian Farrel CC: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: Liaison received from ITU-T on T-MPLS ring protection Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all, it seems to me there maybe some implications for GMPLS based on previous experience with "software based 4F-BLSRs", that is rings that are setup on portions of a mesh network to provide fast redundant protection using SDH like ring switching mechanisms. These types of rings which are applicable to a number of layers (optical, SDH, whatever) have traditionally had interoperability problems across vendors. This has typically involved how to share the "ring map" information (see section 17.1 of the liaison attachment). In addition "nodes" need information on connections added and dropped so they can prevent mis-connection (the "squelching" process). Obviously one way to keep track of a ring map is to "mark" a link as belonging to a particular ring and distribute this info via GMPLS routing. Regards Greg B. Adrian Farrel wrote: > Hi, > > We received a liaison from the ITU-T that reads as follows... > > SG15 Q9 has nearly completed its work on a recommendation for > T-MPLS Ring Protection - G.8132. It is targeted to consent this > new recommendation in the next SG15 plenary meeting scheduled > for Feb., 2008. > > We have attached the latest draft for your information and > comments. > > We are requested to comment by 11th February 2008. > > At first glance, this work appears to concentrate on the data plane > only and so is not within our scope. The MPLS working group was also > copied and can handle any issues concerning the MPLS data plane. > > As always, you can see all incoming and outgoing communications for > CCAMP at www.olddog.co.uk/ccamp.htm > > Thanks, > Adrian > > > -- =================================================== Dr Greg Bernstein, Grotto Networking (510) 573-2237 Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:42:36 +0000 Message-ID: <476A8C9A.6010301@grotto-networking.com> Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 07:39:06 -0800 From: Greg Bernstein User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ccamp Subject: Re: On Labels for Wavelength Switched Optical Networks... Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040304080106020609050803" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------040304080106020609050803 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi folks I've gotten a couple of questions on my note, so I wanted to clarify. The essence of the discussion below is to show that no significantly simpler method exists to specify a global label for lambdas (in either frequency or wavelength) and that the label of [Otani] has the advantage of being based on a widely accepted and used standard. I do not think that we need to modify the label of [Otani] in any significant way, though I have discussed with the authors a slight "tweak" to the CWDM format to more closely mirror the DWDM format. Regards Greg B. Greg Bernstein wrote: > > Hi folks, at the Vancouver meeting the lambda label format of Otani, > et. al. draft-otani-ccamp-gmpls-lambda-labels-01.txt > > [Otani] was presented for a second time and a few new issues seemed to > arise. I'm writing this note to see if we can resolve these on the > list so this work can move forward, since the label format is > valuable, in general, to the control of wavelength switched optical > networks (WSON). > > First, a general 32 bit lambda label has been defined in RFC3471. > This previous label does not directly relate to either the wavelength > or frequency of the light used in a lambda LSP in a standardized way > (folks can use the 32 bits as they see fit). > To come up with a completely general "lambda label" one could/should > define both a (i) wavelength label specified in meters and (ii) a > frequency label specified in Hertz (Hz). These could be specified > either with a 32 bit IEEE floating point number or via a suitable 32 > bit integer by suitably adjusting the base units. We could represent > the frequency via a 32 bit integer in MHz, then a 193.1THz light > source could be characterized by the integer 193,100,000. Similarly we > could represent the wavelength label via a 32 bit integer in pico > meters (10-12 meters), then a 1550nm wavelength could be characterized > by the integer 1,550,000. > > Now any of the previous formats could be used with the 32 bit lambda > label already defined. The problem here is to pick a format for > interoperability and compatibility with potentially common wavelength > switched control operations. > Issues with the previously mentioned formats: > > (a) While floating point numbers provide great flexibility, as a > label they have issues when it comes to comparison operations. > > (b) An integer format with a suitably scaled exponent is relatively > simple and just leaves the choice of "exponent" to be decided. > > (c) Neither format contains any "context" information about the WDM > system in general. > > The format proposed in [Otani]. avoids the above three issues and > enhances common control plane operations as follows: > > (a) The format is integer based, hence avoids issues with floating > point comparisons. > > (b) The format is based on the widely recognized ITU-T standard > grids (ITU-T G.694.1 and .2) and fosters interoperability more than > potentially any other choice. > > (c) The ITU-T grids come in various widths and hence have an > inherent growth path. > > (d) The ITU-T grids come in both frequency (G.694.1) and wavelength > (G.694.2) flavored versions an both are incorporated in the [Otani] > label format. > > (e) The format includes information on the grid spacing which is > important WDM context information useful in many label selection > processes. For example a tunable laser associated with a 50GHz > spacing WDM system could specify acceptable label range via the > inclusive range label set mechanism. Note that only those frequencies > (labels) that fall on the grid are supported and not intermediate > frequencies. > > > At the CCAMP WG meeting in Vancouver it was pointed out (by Lou > Berger) that since a lambda label already exists and that existing > implementations may make use of it that the proposed label of [Otani] > would be better off referred to as a "G.694 label". With such a change > I think that this label format (and accompanying draft) should move > forward as a working group document. > > Comments, suggestions, issues? > > Regards > > Greg B. > > -- > =================================================== > Dr Greg Bernstein, Grotto Networking (510) 573-2237 > > -- =================================================== Dr Greg Bernstein, Grotto Networking (510) 573-2237 --------------040304080106020609050803 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi folks I've gotten a couple of questions on my note, so I wanted to clarify. The essence of the discussion below is to show that  no significantly simpler method exists to specify a global label for lambdas (in either frequency or wavelength) and that the label of [Otani] has the advantage of being based on a widely accepted and used standard.  I do not think that we need to modify the label of [Otani] in any significant way, though I have discussed with the authors a slight "tweak" to the CWDM format to more closely mirror the DWDM format.

Regards

Greg B.

Greg Bernstein wrote:

Hi folks, at the Vancouver meeting the lambda label format of Otani, et. al. draft-otani-ccamp-gmpls-lambda-labels-01.txt [Otani] was presented for a second time and a few new issues seemed to arise. I'm writing this note to see if we can resolve these on the list so this work can move forward, since the label format is valuable, in general, to the control of wavelength switched optical networks (WSON).

First, a general 32 bit lambda label has been defined in RFC3471.  This previous label does not directly relate to either the wavelength or frequency of the light used in a lambda LSP in a standardized way (folks can use the 32 bits as they see fit).
To come up with a completely general "lambda label" one could/should define both a (i) wavelength label specified in meters and (ii) a frequency label specified in Hertz (Hz).  These could be specified either with a 32 bit IEEE floating point number or via a suitable 32 bit integer by suitably adjusting the base units.  We could represent the frequency via a 32 bit integer in MHz, then a 193.1THz light source could be characterized by the integer 193,100,000. Similarly we could represent the wavelength label via a 32 bit integer in pico meters (10-12 meters), then a 1550nm wavelength could be characterized by the integer 1,550,000.

 Now any of the previous formats could be used with the 32 bit lambda label already defined.  The problem here is to pick a format for interoperability and compatibility with potentially common wavelength switched control operations.
Issues with the previously mentioned formats:

(a)    While floating point numbers provide great flexibility, as a label they have issues when it comes to comparison operations. 

(b)   An integer format with a suitably scaled exponent is relatively simple and just leaves the choice of “exponent” to be decided.

(c)    Neither format contains any “context” information about the WDM system in general.

The format proposed in [Otani]. avoids the above three issues and enhances common control plane operations as follows:

(a)    The format is integer based, hence avoids issues with floating point comparisons.

(b)   The format is based on the widely recognized ITU-T standard grids (ITU-T G.694.1 and .2) and fosters interoperability more than potentially any other choice. 

(c)    The ITU-T grids come in various widths and hence have an inherent growth path.

(d)   The ITU-T grids come in both frequency (G.694.1) and wavelength (G.694.2) flavored versions an both are incorporated in the [Otani] label format.

(e)    The format includes information on the grid spacing which is important WDM context information useful in many label selection processes.  For example a tunable laser associated with a 50GHz spacing WDM system could specify acceptable label range via the inclusive range label set mechanism.  Note that only those frequencies (labels) that fall on the grid are supported and not intermediate frequencies.

 
At the CCAMP WG meeting in Vancouver it was pointed out (by Lou Berger) that since a lambda label already exists and that existing implementations may make use of it that the proposed label of [Otani] would be better off referred to as a “G.694 label”. With such a change I think that this label format (and accompanying draft) should move forward as a working group document.

Comments, suggestions, issues?

Regards

Greg B.

-- 
===================================================
Dr Greg Bernstein, Grotto Networking (510) 573-2237

  

-- 
===================================================
Dr Greg Bernstein, Grotto Networking (510) 573-2237
--------------040304080106020609050803-- Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:01:55 +0000 Message-ID: <035001c840f3$bf07d010$9200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "Ross Callon" Cc: , "WG Milestone Tracker" , Subject: Please publish draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-eval-05 Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 21:28:10 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, Here is the proto write-up for draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-eval-05 Thanks, Adrian === Proto-write-up for draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-eval-05 Intended status : Informational Recommend that this I-D is progressed in parallel with draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-reqs-07.txt requested for publication at the same time. > (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the > Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the > document and, in particular, does he or she believe this > version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? Adrian Farrel is the document shepherd. He has personally reviewed the I-D and believes it is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication. > (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members > and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have > any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that > have been performed? Long list of authors/contributors/acknowledgees. This document has been reviewed by the CCAMP working group and received some comments at IETF meetings and on the mailing list. In addition, the I-D received thorough review on liaison from Question 14 of Study Group 15 of the ITU-T. These reviews have been sufficiently deep and broad. > (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document > needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, > e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with > AAA, internationalization or XML? No concerns. > (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or > issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director > and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he > or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or > has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any > event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated > that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those > concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document > been filed? If so, please include a reference to the > disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on > this issue. The document is sound. > (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it > represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with > others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and > agree with it? There were no problems with consensus for this document. > (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme > discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in > separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It > should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is > entered into the ID Tracker.) No threats. No discontent. > (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the > document satisfies all ID nits? (See > http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and > http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are > not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document > met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB > Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? All checks made. > (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and > informative? Are there normative references to documents that > are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear > state? If such normative references exist, what is the > strategy for their completion? Are there normative references > that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If > so, list these downward references to support the Area > Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. References split. No downrefs. > (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA > consideration section exists and is consistent with the body > of the document? If the document specifies protocol > extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA > registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If > the document creates a new registry, does it define the > proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation > procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a > reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. If the > document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd > conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG > can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? This is an Informational I-D. A null IANA section is present. > (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the > document that are written in a formal language, such as XML > code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in > an automated checker? No such sections. > (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document > Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document > Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the > "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval > announcement contains the following sections: > > Technical Summary > Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract > and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be > an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract > or introduction. This document provides an evaluation of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) protocols and mechanisms against the requirements for Multi-Layer Networks (MLN) and Multi-Region Networks (MRN). In addition, this document identifies areas where additional protocol extensions or procedures are needed to satisfy these requirements, and provides guidelines for potential extensions. > Working Group Summary > Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For > example, was there controversy about particular points or > were there decisions where the consensus was particularly > rough? Nothing of note. > Document Quality > Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a > significant number of vendors indicated their plan to > implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that > merit special mention as having done a thorough review, > e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a > conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If > there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, > what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type > review, on what date was the request posted? This is an Informational I-D with no protocol specifications. Expert review of multi-layer network architecture was received from the ITU-T. Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 21:30:10 +0000 Message-ID: <034f01c840f3$bd511f60$9200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "Ross Callon" Cc: , "WG Milestone Tracker" , Subject: Please publish draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-reqs-07 Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 21:25:39 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Here is the proto write-up for draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-reqs-07 Thanks, Adrian === Proto-write-up for draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-reqs-07 Intended status : Informational Recommend that this I-D is progressed in parallel with draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-eval-05.txt requested for publication at the same time. > (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the > Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the > document and, in particular, does he or she believe this > version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? Adrian Farrel is the document shepherd. He has personally reviewed the I-D and believes it is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication. > (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members > and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have > any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that > have been performed? Long list of authors/contributors. This document has been reviewed by the CCAMP working group and discussed quite extensively at IETF meetings and on the mailing list. In addition, the I-D received thorough review on liaison from Question 14 of Study Group 15 of the ITU-T. These reviews have been sufficiently deep and broad. > (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document > needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, > e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with > AAA, internationalization or XML? No concerns. > (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or > issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director > and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he > or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or > has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any > event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated > that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those > concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document > been filed? If so, please include a reference to the > disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on > this issue. The document is sound. An IPR disclosure can be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/518/ and was filed against the -00 version of this I-D when it was still an individual submission. This was brought to the attention of the working group, but no-one had any issues. Since this is an Informational Requirements I-D, it might be unlikely that there would be any implementation of the I-D to be impacted by the IPR claim. > (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it > represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with > others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and > agree with it? There were no problems with consensus for this document. > (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme > discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in > separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It > should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is > entered into the ID Tracker.) No threats. No discontent. > (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the > document satisfies all ID nits? (See > http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and > http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are > not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document > met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB > Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? All checks made. > (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and > informative? Are there normative references to documents that > are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear > state? If such normative references exist, what is the > strategy for their completion? Are there normative references > that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If > so, list these downward references to support the Area > Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. References split. No downrefs. > (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA > consideration section exists and is consistent with the body > of the document? If the document specifies protocol > extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA > registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If > the document creates a new registry, does it define the > proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation > procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a > reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. If the > document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd > conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG > can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? This is an Informational I-D. A null IANA section is present. > (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the > document that are written in a formal language, such as XML > code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in > an automated checker? No such sections. > (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document > Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document > Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the > "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval > announcement contains the following sections: > > Technical Summary > Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract > and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be > an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract > or introduction. Most of the initial efforts to utilize Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) have been related to environments hosting devices with a single switching capability. The complexity raised by the control of such data planes is similar to that seen in classical IP/MPLS networks. By extending MPLS to support multiple switching technologies, GMPLS provides a comprehensive framework for the control of a multi- layered network of either a single switching technology or multiple switching technologies. In GMPLS, a switching technology domain defines a region, and a network of multiple switching types is referred to in this document as a Multi-Region Network (MRN). When referring in general to a layered network, which may consist of either a single or multiple regions, this document uses the term, Multi-Layer Network (MLN). This document defines a framework for GMPLS based multi-region/ multi-layer networks and lists a set of functional requirements. > Working Group Summary > Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For > example, was there controversy about particular points or > were there decisions where the consensus was particularly > rough? There was some unresolved debate about the term "virtual TE link" and whether it should be replaced with "potential TE link". However, since the former had been in use for a long time and was used in published RFCs, and since there was not great support for a change, we retained "virtual". > Document Quality > Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a > significant number of vendors indicated their plan to > implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that > merit special mention as having done a thorough review, > e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a > conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If > there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, > what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type > review, on what date was the request posted? This is an Informational I-D with no protocol specifications. Expert review of multi-layer network architecture was received from the ITU-T. Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 21:17:52 +0000 Message-ID: <034801c840f2$1cf34f30$9200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Subject: Update: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-eval-05.txt Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 21:16:32 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, Only changes are format and I-D nits necessary to advance the I-D to the AD for review. Adrian ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Cc: Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 9:10 PM Subject: I-D Action:draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-eval-05.txt >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >directories. > This draft is a work item of the Common Control and Measurement Plane > Working Group of the IETF. > > > Title : Evaluation of existing GMPLS Protocols against Multi > Layer and Multi Region Networks (MLN/MRN) > Author(s) : J. Le Roux, et al. > Filename : draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-eval-05.txt > Pages : 16 > Date : 2007-12-17 > > This document provides an evaluation of Generalized Multi-Protocol > Label Switching (GMPLS) protocols and mechanisms against the > requirements for Multi-Layer Networks (MLN) and Multi-Region Networks > (MRN). In addition, this document identifies areas where additional > protocol extensions or procedures are needed to satisfy these > requirements, and provides guidelines for potential extensions.Conventions > used in this document > > The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", > "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this > document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119. > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-eval-05.txt > > To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to > i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of > the message. > You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce > to change your subscription settings. > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the > username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After > logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then > "get draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-eval-05.txt". > > A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in > http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html > or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > > Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. > > Send a message to: > mailserv@ietf.org. > In the body type: > "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-eval-05.txt". > > NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in > MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this > feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" > command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or > a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers > exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with > "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split > up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on > how to manipulate these messages. > > Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader > implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the > Internet-Draft. > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > I-D-Announce mailing list > I-D-Announce@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce > Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 21:12:31 +0000 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D Action:draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-eval-05.txt Message-Id: Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:10:02 -0500 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Common Control and Measurement Plane Working Group of the IETF. Title : Evaluation of existing GMPLS Protocols against Multi Layer and Multi Region Networks (MLN/MRN) Author(s) : J. Le Roux, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-eval-05.txt Pages : 16 Date : 2007-12-17 This document provides an evaluation of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) protocols and mechanisms against the requirements for Multi-Layer Networks (MLN) and Multi-Region Networks (MRN). In addition, this document identifies areas where additional protocol extensions or procedures are needed to satisfy these requirements, and provides guidelines for potential extensions.Conventions used in this document The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-eval-05.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-eval-05.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-eval-05.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2007-12-17160517.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-eval-05.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-eval-05.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2007-12-17160517.I-D\@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:25:53 +0000 Message-ID: <030501c840c9$3272fd20$9200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Subject: Liaison received from ITU-T on T-MPLS ring protection Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:18:45 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, We received a liaison from the ITU-T that reads as follows... SG15 Q9 has nearly completed its work on a recommendation for T-MPLS Ring Protection - G.8132. It is targeted to consent this new recommendation in the next SG15 plenary meeting scheduled for Feb., 2008. We have attached the latest draft for your information and comments. We are requested to comment by 11th February 2008. At first glance, this work appears to concentrate on the data plane only and so is not within our scope. The MPLS working group was also copied and can handle any issues concerning the MPLS data plane. As always, you can see all incoming and outgoing communications for CCAMP at www.olddog.co.uk/ccamp.htm Thanks, Adrian Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:58:21 +0000 Message-ID: <02e101c840bd$08eaa090$9200a8c0@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Subject: Draft response to the OIF Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:50:46 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, The OIF sent us a communication (http://www.olddog.co.uk/oif2007_382_01.pdf) with some specific questions about the use of GMPLS protocols. Here is a draft response. Thanks to Lou Berger for the bulk of this text. Comments please before I send this around Christmas. Thanks, Adrian === To : Lyndon Ong, OIF TC Chair Cc: Ross Callon, IETF Routing Area Director David Ward, IETF Routing Area Director Subject: Response to Your Questions about GMPLS Protocol Usage Dear Lyndon, Thanks for your communication dated 29th November 2007 and your subsequent email exchange with clarifications. Please find below responses from CCAMP experts to the questions you posed. May we take this oportunity to stress that we are open to receiving such questions in a less formal way either directly or through the CCAMP mailing list, and may be able to provide timely responses during the course of your testing events. > 1) One of the features provided in the OIF UNI 2.0 is the ability to > non-disruptively modify service attributes associated with an LSP. The > modification of the service attributes is limited to LSPs that were > initiated using Shared Explicit filter style. Modification is performed > by signaling a new LSP that utilizes the same Tunnel ID as the original > LSP but with the new service parameters. Once the new LSP state is > established, the original LSP state is removed. There are two distinct options for modifying an LSP. The first is "in-place" modification where a new trigger Path message is sent for an existing LSP. The second is the "make-before-break" approach to tunnel/service modification first introduced in RFC 3209. You appear to be refering to the latter case since you mention a new LSP. > Non-disruptive modification was demonstrated in the 2007 > interoperability test by modifying the bandwidth of an LSP realized by a > SONET/SDH VCAT group. In the process of testing, a number of questions > arose regarding the RESV message flow. These questions included: > > - How many RESV messages are expected to be generated? Is it one since > the resources in use by both LSPs are the same, or two since the LSPs > are handled through separate signaling sessions. In make-before-break, each LSP is signaled independently. Per LSP Resv messages should be expected. Assuming the old LSP is in-place at the time of signaling the new LSP, and only one Path message is issued, then only one Resv would be expected. That is, a Resv for the new LSP, but no further Resv for the existing LSP. When the old LSP is also modified as part of the make-before-break, e.g., to update administrative status prior to alarm-free tear-down, then a Resv message on the old LSP may also be generated. > - What is the bandwidth amount that should be reflected in the RESV > messages? If separate RESV messages are generated for both LSPs, is it > the bandwidth requested in the corresponding PATH message? Or is it > the actual bandwidth being provided by the connection at the time the > RESV message is generated? According to RFC 4606: For a particular sender in a session, the contents of the FLOWSPEC object received in a Resv message SHOULD be identical to the contents of the SENDER_TSPEC object received in the corresponding Path message. If the objects do not match, a ResvErr message with a "Traffic Control Error/Bad Flowspec value" error SHOULD be generated. Again, in make-before-break, each LSP is signaled independently. > In the interop test both approaches were observed. To facilitate the > subsequent demonstration, receivers were expected to handle both cases. > > 2) In the process of testing, we found that not all implementations > included Explicit Route Objects (ERO) in PATH messages when performing > graceful deletion, even though earlier PATH messages for the LSP had > included an ERO. For some intermediate node implementations, the lack of > the ERO was seen as removing the 'pinned' nature of the connection, > causing the node to interpret the PATH message as requiring a new path > computation which may end up using a different route. Other > implementations utilized the Session and Sender Template to relate the > received PATH message with the existing connection thereby identifying > the path the message should be forwarded on. This approach was taken by > these implementations since inclusion of an ERO is not mandatory. We > would appreciate CCAMP's thoughts on what the behavior should be. As described in RFC 2205, Path and Resv messages are idempotent. This means that any Path message reflects full state, and differences between one Path message and a subsequent Path message may be reasonably considered an explicit change. Therefore, while there is no explicit requirement stated in RFC 3473, it is typical to only modify the Admin Status Object in Path messages sent in connection to RFC 3473 section 7.2.1. deletion procedures (i.e. to include the full ERO as on previous Path messages). It may be observed, however, that while an implementation detecting a change in ERO (such as the removal of the ERO) may legitimately opt to reroute, that implementation should also note the change in Admin Status associated with the graceful deletion and may "assume" that such a reroute would be a waste of time. Further, in a transport system, implementaitons should only perform local reroutes (deviating from in-place LSPs) with extreme caution since these risk impacting traffic. > 3) In the process of testing, we found cases where the update of a > link's attributes (i.e. available capacity) was not being done by > advertising an updated LSA using the same LSAid, but by flushing the old > LSA followed by generation of a new LSA with a new LSAid. Since the > LSAid for Opaque LSAs is not tied to the resource being advertised > (i.e. the resource is identified using TLVs in the Opaque LSA, not using > the LSAid as is done with IPv4 OSPF LSAs), this can cause a problem as > it causes the order that the LSAs are processed to become important. We > would appreciate CCAMP's thoughts on what the behavior should be. The OSPF WG, is the proper WG to respond to this as they are the authoritative source on OSPF technology. From our perspective, RFC 2328 dictates the use of the same Link State ID when advertising a change in a link's information. While it is certainly possible to advertise a change via issuing an LSA with a new Link State ID and flushing old state, from the perspective of OSPF this is not a change in link state, rather a completely new link. > 4) Finally, in the process of testing, we found cases where established > connections were deleted based on node restart procedures in RFC > 3473. R163 of the OIF Carrier requirements (liaised to IETF in 12/2006) > states deletion of established connections as the result of control > plane failure (including node restart) shall not occur. It has been > identified this could also occur when a number of cascaded nodes restart > at the same time. We would appreciate CCAMP's thoughts on ways to > prevent deletion of established connections from occurring when a node > restarts. Without specific details, it's impossible to address the found cases or to identify if they were due to implementation or specification issues. More broadly, RFC 3473 does not require the removal of forwarding state, even in the case of state synchronization errors, and implementations may take different action (such as reporting the condition to a management station). An implementation at a restarting node may consider that the lack of control plane state at its neighbor indicates that the removal of forwarding plane state has been attempted through the control plane while the restarting node was down and should follow local policy in determining how to react. We would also like to direct you to RFC 5063 and draft-ietf-ccamp-gr-description which may provide additional relevant information. We hope this addresses your questions. Best regards, Adrian Farrel and Deborah Brungard IETF CCAMP working group co-chairs Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 13:44:10 +0000 Message-ID: <47667C2B.4090100@kddilabs.jp> Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:39:55 +0900 From: Tomohiro Otani User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Diego Caviglia , Greg Bernstein Cc: ccamp Subject: Re: On Labels for Wavelength Switched Optical Networks... Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Greg and Diego, Thank you for your initiation and clarification. As Diego clearly pointed out, we actually rely on the data plane which=20 is especially defined by ITU-T. All transmitters, MUX/DEMUXs, ROADMs and WSS's follow the ITU-T frequency (wavelength) grid now. In that sense, it is=20 advantageous for us to compliant with that specification in terms of the control plane. Furthermore, taking advantage of this e-mail message, I would like to=20 clarify, again, the label format definition. During the meeting, there seems to be an=20 misunderstanding about the label definition. It has some bits to indicate a wavelength spacing,=20 but this info. is utilized only to calculate the wavelength value for switching, not to control the=20 channel spacing of the node itself. Regards, Tomo Diego Caviglia =E3=81=95=E3=82=93=E3=81=AF=E6=9B=B8=E3=81=8D=E3=81=BE=E3=81= =97=E3=81=9F: > > HI Greg, > > Thanks for this very useful summary. > > I=E2=80=99m one of the author of this ID so my comment is not fully neu= tral J=20 > btw in IETF we always state that the data plane is not part of our=20 > work and in-fact we rely as much as possible on other standard bodies=20 > (IEEE, ITU-T, =E2=80=A6) for data plane definition. > > For G.709 and G.707 (SDH) we used as label what was defined in the=20 > ITU-T. As example the RFC4606 defines the SONET/SDH label as extension=20 > of the numbering scheme defined in G.707. > > My view is that we already have a standard body (ITU-T) that defined=20 > how to identify a wavelength and that definition fits well in our 32=20 > bits format so IMHO it is straightforward to use that definition. > > My two cents > > > Diego > > -----------------------------------------------------------------------= - > > *From:* owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] *On=20 > Behalf Of *Greg Bernstein > *Sent:* venerd=C3=AC 14 dicembre 2007 17.17 > *To:* ccamp > *Subject:* On Labels for Wavelength Switched Optical Networks... > > Hi folks, at the Vancouver meeting the lambda label format of Otani,=20 > et. al. draft-otani-ccamp-gmpls-lambda-labels-01.txt=20 > =20 > [Otani] was presented for a second time and a few new issues seemed to=20 > arise. I'm writing this note to see if we can resolve these on the=20 > list so this work can move forward, since the label format is=20 > valuable, in general, to the control of wavelength switched optical=20 > networks (WSON). > > First, a general 32 bit lambda label has been defined in RFC3471. This=20 > previous label does not directly relate to either the wavelength or=20 > frequency of the light used in a lambda LSP in a standardized way=20 > (folks can use the 32 bits as they see fit). > To come up with a completely general "lambda label" one could/should=20 > define both a (i) wavelength label specified in meters and (ii) a=20 > frequency label specified in Hertz (Hz). These could be specified=20 > either with a 32 bit IEEE floating point number or via a suitable 32=20 > bit integer by suitably adjusting the base units. We could represent=20 > the frequency via a 32 bit integer in MHz, then a 193.1THz light=20 > source could be characterized by the integer 193,100,000. Similarly we=20 > could represent the wavelength label via a 32 bit integer in pico=20 > meters (10-12 meters), then a 1550nm wavelength could be characterized=20 > by the integer 1,550,000. > > Now any of the previous formats could be used with the 32 bit lambda=20 > label already defined. The problem here is to pick a format for=20 > interoperability and compatibility with potentially common wavelength=20 > switched control operations. > Issues with the previously mentioned formats: > > (a) While floating point numbers provide great flexibility, as a label=20 > they have issues when it comes to comparison operations. > > (b) An integer format with a suitably scaled exponent is relatively=20 > simple and just leaves the choice of =E2=80=9Cexponent=E2=80=9D to be d= ecided. > > (c) Neither format contains any =E2=80=9Ccontext=E2=80=9D information a= bout the WDM=20 > system in general. > > The format proposed in [Otani]. avoids the above three issues and=20 > enhances common control plane operations as follows: > > (a) The format is integer based, hence avoids issues with floating=20 > point comparisons. > > (b) The format is based on the widely recognized ITU-T standard grids=20 > (ITU-T G.694.1 and .2) and fosters interoperability more than=20 > potentially any other choice. > > (c) The ITU-T grids come in various widths and hence have an inherent=20 > growth path. > > (d) The ITU-T grids come in both frequency (G.694.1) and wavelength=20 > (G.694.2) flavored versions an both are incorporated in the [Otani]=20 > label format. > > (e) The format includes information on the grid spacing which is=20 > important WDM context information useful in many label selection=20 > processes. For example a tunable laser associated with a 50GHz spacing=20 > WDM system could specify acceptable label range via the inclusive=20 > range label set mechanism. Note that only those frequencies (labels)=20 > that fall on the grid are supported and not intermediate frequencies. > > > At the CCAMP WG meeting in Vancouver it was pointed out (by Lou=20 > Berger) that since a lambda label already exists and that existing=20 > implementations may make use of it that the proposed label of [Otani]=20 > would be better off referred to as a =E2=80=9CG.694 label=E2=80=9D. Wit= h such a change=20 > I think that this label format (and accompanying draft) should move=20 > forward as a working group document. > > Comments, suggestions, issues? > > Regards > > Greg B. > > --=20 > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D > Dr Greg Bernstein, Grotto Networking (510) 573-2237 > =20 Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 09:02:41 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C8408B.1556104D" Subject: RE: On Labels for Wavelength Switched Optical Networks... Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 09:59:20 +0100 Message-ID: <0428AC48A879ED46A94F39D5665DF684E5DF3C@esealmw110.eemea.ericsson.se> Thread-Topic: On Labels for Wavelength Switched Optical Networks... Thread-Index: Acg+bummec4oBBqjTUK/OmIaHQaRDQCGzQTA From: "Diego Caviglia" To: "Greg Bernstein" , "ccamp" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C8408B.1556104D Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable HI Greg, Thanks for this very useful summary. =20 I'm one of the author of this ID so my comment is not fully neutral :-) = btw in IETF we always state that the data plane is not part of our work = and in-fact we rely as much as possible on other standard bodies (IEEE, = ITU-T, ...) for data plane definition. =20 For G.709 and G.707 (SDH) we used as label what was defined in the = ITU-T. As example the RFC4606 defines the SONET/SDH label as extension = of the numbering scheme defined in G.707. =20 My view is that we already have a standard body (ITU-T) that defined how = to identify a wavelength and that definition fits well in our 32 bits = format so IMHO it is straightforward to use that definition. =20 My two cents Diego =20 ________________________________ From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On = Behalf Of Greg Bernstein Sent: venerd=EC 14 dicembre 2007 17.17 To: ccamp Subject: On Labels for Wavelength Switched Optical Networks... =20 Hi folks, at the Vancouver meeting the lambda label format of Otani, et. = al. draft-otani-ccamp-gmpls-lambda-labels-01.txt = = [Otani] was presented for a second time and a few new issues seemed to = arise. I'm writing this note to see if we can resolve these on the list = so this work can move forward, since the label format is valuable, in = general, to the control of wavelength switched optical networks (WSON). First, a general 32 bit lambda label has been defined in RFC3471. This = previous label does not directly relate to either the wavelength or = frequency of the light used in a lambda LSP in a standardized way (folks = can use the 32 bits as they see fit). To come up with a completely general "lambda label" one could/should = define both a (i) wavelength label specified in meters and (ii) a = frequency label specified in Hertz (Hz). These could be specified = either with a 32 bit IEEE floating point number or via a suitable 32 bit = integer by suitably adjusting the base units. We could represent the = frequency via a 32 bit integer in MHz, then a 193.1THz light source = could be characterized by the integer 193,100,000. Similarly we could = represent the wavelength label via a 32 bit integer in pico meters = (10-12 meters), then a 1550nm wavelength could be characterized by the = integer 1,550,000. Now any of the previous formats could be used with the 32 bit lambda = label already defined. The problem here is to pick a format for = interoperability and compatibility with potentially common wavelength = switched control operations. Issues with the previously mentioned formats: (a) While floating point numbers provide great flexibility, as a = label they have issues when it comes to comparison operations. =20 (b) An integer format with a suitably scaled exponent is relatively = simple and just leaves the choice of "exponent" to be decided. (c) Neither format contains any "context" information about the WDM = system in general. The format proposed in [Otani]. avoids the above three issues and = enhances common control plane operations as follows: (a) The format is integer based, hence avoids issues with floating = point comparisons. (b) The format is based on the widely recognized ITU-T standard grids = (ITU-T G.694.1 and .2) and fosters interoperability more than = potentially any other choice.=20 (c) The ITU-T grids come in various widths and hence have an inherent = growth path. (d) The ITU-T grids come in both frequency (G.694.1) and wavelength = (G.694.2) flavored versions an both are incorporated in the [Otani] = label format. (e) The format includes information on the grid spacing which is = important WDM context information useful in many label selection = processes. For example a tunable laser associated with a 50GHz spacing = WDM system could specify acceptable label range via the inclusive range = label set mechanism. Note that only those frequencies (labels) that = fall on the grid are supported and not intermediate frequencies. =20 At the CCAMP WG meeting in Vancouver it was pointed out (by Lou Berger) = that since a lambda label already exists and that existing = implementations may make use of it that the proposed label of [Otani] = would be better off referred to as a "G.694 label". With such a change I = think that this label format (and accompanying draft) should move = forward as a working group document. Comments, suggestions, issues? Regards Greg B. --=20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D Dr Greg Bernstein, Grotto Networking (510) 573-2237 =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C8408B.1556104D Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

HI = Greg,

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 = Thanks for this very useful summary.

 

I’m one of the author of this = ID so my comment is not fully neutral J btw in IETF we always state that the data plane is not part = of our work and in-fact we rely as much as possible on other standard bodies = (IEEE, ITU-T, …) for data plane definition.

 

For G.709 and G.707 (SDH) we used = as label what was defined in the ITU-T.=A0 As example the RFC4606 defines the = SONET/SDH label as extension of the numbering scheme defined in = G.707.

 

My view is that we already have a = standard body (ITU-T) that defined how to identify a wavelength and that = definition fits well in our 32 bits format so IMHO it is straightforward to use that definition.

 

My two = cents


Diego

 

From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org = [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Greg Bernstein
Sent: venerd=EC 14 = dicembre 2007 17.17
To: ccamp
Subject: On Labels for = Wavelength Switched Optical Networks...

 

Hi folks, at the Vancouver meeting the lambda label format of Otani, et. al. draft-otani-ccamp-gmpls-lambda-labels-01.txt [Otani] was presented = for a second time and a few new issues seemed to arise. I'm writing this note = to see if we can resolve these on the list so this work can move forward, since = the label format is valuable, in general, to the control of wavelength = switched optical networks (WSON).

First, a general 32 bit lambda label has been defined in RFC3471.  This = previous label does not directly relate to either the wavelength or frequency of = the light used in a lambda LSP in a standardized way (folks can use the 32 = bits as they see fit).
To come up with a completely general "lambda label" one = could/should define both a (i) wavelength label specified in meters and (ii) a = frequency label specified in Hertz (Hz).  These could be specified either = with a 32 bit IEEE floating point number or via a suitable 32 bit integer by = suitably adjusting the base units.  We could represent the frequency via a = 32 bit integer in MHz, then a 193.1THz light source could be characterized by = the integer 193,100,000. Similarly we could represent the wavelength label = via a 32 bit integer in pico meters (10-12 meters), then a 1550nm wavelength = could be characterized by the integer 1,550,000.

 Now any of the previous formats could be used with the 32 bit lambda label = already defined.  The problem here is to pick a format for interoperability = and compatibility with potentially common wavelength switched control = operations.
Issues with the previously mentioned = formats:

(a)    While = floating point numbers provide great flexibility, as a label they have issues = when it comes to comparison operations. 

(b)   An integer = format with a suitably scaled exponent is relatively simple and just leaves the = choice of “exponent” to be decided.

(c)    = Neither format contains any “context” information about the WDM system in = general.

The format proposed in [Otani]. avoids the above three issues and enhances = common control plane operations as follows:

(a)    The = format is integer based, hence avoids issues with floating point = comparisons.

(b)   The format = is based on the widely recognized ITU-T standard grids (ITU-T G.694.1 and .2) and fosters interoperability more than potentially any other = choice. 

(c)    The = ITU-T grids come in various widths and hence have an inherent growth = path.

(d)   The ITU-T = grids come in both frequency (G.694.1) and wavelength (G.694.2) flavored versions = an both are incorporated in the [Otani] label format.

(e)    The = format includes information on the grid spacing which is important WDM context information useful in many label selection processes.  For example = a tunable laser associated with a 50GHz spacing WDM system could specify acceptable label range via the inclusive range label set = mechanism.  Note that only those frequencies (labels) that fall on the grid are supported = and not intermediate frequencies.

 
At the CCAMP WG meeting in Vancouver it was pointed out (by Lou = Berger) that since a lambda label already exists and that existing = implementations may make use of it that the proposed label of [Otani] would be better off = referred to as a “G.694 label”. With such a change I think that this = label format (and accompanying draft) should move forward as a working group document.

Comments, suggestions, issues?

Regards

Greg B.

-- 
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Dr Greg Bernstein, Grotto Networking (510) =
573-2237
 
------_=_NextPart_001_01C8408B.1556104D-- Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 02:52:54 +0000 Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 10:49:15 +0800 From: Dan Li Subject: Re: On Labels for Wavelength Switched Optical Networks... To: Greg Bernstein , ccamp Message-id: <052c01c84057$6948a4c0$3f4d460a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_Ad810cjgjsTDLe8cI94HZA)" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_Ad810cjgjsTDLe8cI94HZA) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Hi Greg, For the last part of your email, do you mean we need a field in the 32bit label to indicate this is a G.694 label? Thanks, Dan ----- Original Message ----- From: Greg Bernstein To: ccamp Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 12:16 AM Subject: On Labels for Wavelength Switched Optical Networks... Hi folks, at the Vancouver meeting the lambda label format of Otani, et. al. draft-otani-ccamp-gmpls-lambda-labels-01.txt [Otani] was presented for a second time and a few new issues seemed to arise. I'm writing this note to see if we can resolve these on the list so this work can move forward, since the label format is valuable, in general, to the control of wavelength switched optical networks (WSON). First, a general 32 bit lambda label has been defined in RFC3471. This previous label does not directly relate to either the wavelength or frequency of the light used in a lambda LSP in a standardized way (folks can use the 32 bits as they see fit). To come up with a completely general "lambda label" one could/should define both a (i) wavelength label specified in meters and (ii) a frequency label specified in Hertz (Hz). These could be specified either with a 32 bit IEEE floating point number or via a suitable 32 bit integer by suitably adjusting the base units. We could represent the frequency via a 32 bit integer in MHz, then a 193.1THz light source could be characterized by the integer 193,100,000. Similarly we could represent the wavelength label via a 32 bit integer in pico meters (10-12 meters), then a 1550nm wavelength could be characterized by the integer 1,550,000. Now any of the previous formats could be used with the 32 bit lambda label already defined. The problem here is to pick a format for interoperability and compatibility with potentially common wavelength switched control operations. Issues with the previously mentioned formats: (a) While floating point numbers provide great flexibility, as a label they have issues when it comes to comparison operations. (b) An integer format with a suitably scaled exponent is relatively simple and just leaves the choice of "exponent" to be decided. (c) Neither format contains any "context" information about the WDM system in general. The format proposed in [Otani]. avoids the above three issues and enhances common control plane operations as follows: (a) The format is integer based, hence avoids issues with floating point comparisons. (b) The format is based on the widely recognized ITU-T standard grids (ITU-T G.694.1 and .2) and fosters interoperability more than potentially any other choice. (c) The ITU-T grids come in various widths and hence have an inherent growth path. (d) The ITU-T grids come in both frequency (G.694.1) and wavelength (G.694.2) flavored versions an both are incorporated in the [Otani] label format. (e) The format includes information on the grid spacing which is important WDM context information useful in many label selection processes. For example a tunable laser associated with a 50GHz spacing WDM system could specify acceptable label range via the inclusive range label set mechanism. Note that only those frequencies (labels) that fall on the grid are supported and not intermediate frequencies. At the CCAMP WG meeting in Vancouver it was pointed out (by Lou Berger) that since a lambda label already exists and that existing implementations may make use of it that the proposed label of [Otani] would be better off referred to as a "G.694 label". With such a change I think that this label format (and accompanying draft) should move forward as a working group document. Comments, suggestions, issues? Regards Greg B. -- =================================================== Dr Greg Bernstein, Grotto Networking (510) 573-2237 --Boundary_(ID_Ad810cjgjsTDLe8cI94HZA) Content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: base64 PCFET0NUWVBFIEhUTUwgUFVCTElDICItLy9XM0MvL0RURCBIVE1MIDQuMCBUcmFuc2l0aW9uYWwv L0VOIj4NCjxIVE1MPjxIRUFEPg0KPE1FVEEgaHR0cC1lcXVpdj1Db250ZW50LVR5cGUgY29udGVu dD0idGV4dC9odG1sOyBjaGFyc2V0PWlzby04ODU5LTEiPg0KPE1FVEEgY29udGVudD0iTVNIVE1M IDYuMDAuMjgwMC4xNTYxIiBuYW1lPUdFTkVSQVRPUj4NCjxTVFlMRT48L1NUWUxFPg0KPC9IRUFE Pg0KPEJPRFkgdGV4dD0jMDAwMDAwIGJnQ29sb3I9I2ZmZmZmZj4NCjxESVY+SGkgR3JlZyw8L0RJ Vj4NCjxESVY+Jm5ic3A7PC9ESVY+DQo8RElWPkZvciB0aGUgbGFzdCBwYXJ0IG9mIHlvdXIgZW1h aWwsIGRvIHlvdSBtZWFuIHdlIG5lZWQgYSBmaWVsZCBpbiB0aGUgMzJiaXQgDQpsYWJlbCB0byBp bmRpY2F0ZSB0aGlzIGlzIGEgRy42OTQgbGFiZWw/PC9ESVY+DQo8RElWPiZuYnNwOzwvRElWPg0K PERJVj5UaGFua3MsPC9ESVY+DQo8RElWPiZuYnNwOzwvRElWPg0KPERJVj5EYW48L0RJVj4NCjxE SVY+Jm5ic3A7PC9ESVY+DQo8QkxPQ0tRVU9URSBkaXI9bHRyIA0Kc3R5bGU9IlBBRERJTkctUklH SFQ6IDBweDsgUEFERElORy1MRUZUOiA1cHg7IE1BUkdJTi1MRUZUOiA1cHg7IEJPUkRFUi1MRUZU OiAjMDAwMDAwIDJweCBzb2xpZDsgTUFSR0lOLVJJR0hUOiAwcHgiPg0KICA8RElWIHN0eWxlPSJG T05UOiA5cHQgJiMyMzQzNTsmIzIwMzA3OyI+LS0tLS0gT3JpZ2luYWwgTWVzc2FnZSAtLS0tLSA8 L0RJVj4NCiAgPERJViBzdHlsZT0iQkFDS0dST1VORDogI2U0ZTRlNDsgRk9OVDogOXB0ICYjMjM0 MzU7JiMyMDMwNzs7IGZvbnQtY29sb3I6IGJsYWNrIj48Qj5Gcm9tOjwvQj4gDQogIDxBIHRpdGxl PWdyZWdiQGdyb3R0by1uZXR3b3JraW5nLmNvbSANCiAgaHJlZj0ibWFpbHRvOmdyZWdiQGdyb3R0 by1uZXR3b3JraW5nLmNvbSI+R3JlZyBCZXJuc3RlaW48L0E+IDwvRElWPg0KICA8RElWIHN0eWxl PSJGT05UOiA5cHQgJiMyMzQzNTsmIzIwMzA3OyI+PEI+VG86PC9CPiA8QSB0aXRsZT1jY2FtcEBv cHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcgDQogIGhyZWY9Im1haWx0bzpjY2FtcEBvcHMuaWV0Zi5vcmciPmNjYW1wPC9B PiA8L0RJVj4NCiAgPERJViBzdHlsZT0iRk9OVDogOXB0ICYjMjM0MzU7JiMyMDMwNzsiPjxCPlNl bnQ6PC9CPiBTYXR1cmRheSwgRGVjZW1iZXIgMTUsIDIwMDcgMTI6MTYgDQogIEFNPC9ESVY+DQog IDxESVYgc3R5bGU9IkZPTlQ6IDlwdCAmIzIzNDM1OyYjMjAzMDc7Ij48Qj5TdWJqZWN0OjwvQj4g T24gTGFiZWxzIGZvciBXYXZlbGVuZ3RoIFN3aXRjaGVkIA0KICBPcHRpY2FsIE5ldHdvcmtzLi4u PC9ESVY+DQogIDxESVY+PEJSPjwvRElWPg0KICA8UD5IaSBmb2xrcywgYXQgdGhlIFZhbmNvdXZl ciBtZWV0aW5nIHRoZSBsYW1iZGEgbGFiZWwgZm9ybWF0IG9mIE90YW5pLCBldC4gDQogIGFsLjxB IA0KICBocmVmPSJodHRwOi8vdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaHRtbC9kcmFmdC1vdGFuaS1jY2FtcC1n bXBscy1sYW1iZGEtbGFiZWxzLTAxLnR4dCI+IA0KICBkcmFmdC1vdGFuaS1jY2FtcC1nbXBscy1s YW1iZGEtbGFiZWxzLTAxLnR4dDwvQT4gW090YW5pXSB3YXMgcHJlc2VudGVkIGZvciBhIA0KICBz ZWNvbmQgdGltZSBhbmQgYSBmZXcgbmV3IGlzc3VlcyBzZWVtZWQgdG8gYXJpc2UuIEknbSB3cml0 aW5nIHRoaXMgbm90ZSB0byBzZWUgDQogIGlmIHdlIGNhbiByZXNvbHZlIHRoZXNlIG9uIHRoZSBs aXN0IHNvIHRoaXMgd29yayBjYW4gbW92ZSBmb3J3YXJkLCBzaW5jZSB0aGUgDQogIGxhYmVsIGZv cm1hdCBpcyB2YWx1YWJsZSwgaW4gZ2VuZXJhbCwgdG8gdGhlIGNvbnRyb2wgb2Ygd2F2ZWxlbmd0 aCBzd2l0Y2hlZCANCiAgb3B0aWNhbCBuZXR3b3JrcyAoV1NPTikuPEJSPjwvUD4NCiAgPFAgY2xh c3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPkZpcnN0LCBhIGdlbmVyYWwgMzIgYml0IGxhbWJkYSBsYWJlbCBoYXMgYmVl biBkZWZpbmVkIGluIA0KICBSRkMzNDcxLjxTUEFOPiZuYnNwOyA8L1NQQU4+VGhpcyBwcmV2aW91 cyBsYWJlbCBkb2VzIG5vdCBkaXJlY3RseSByZWxhdGUgdG8gDQogIGVpdGhlciB0aGUgd2F2ZWxl bmd0aCBvciBmcmVxdWVuY3kgb2YgdGhlIGxpZ2h0IHVzZWQgaW4gYSBsYW1iZGEgTFNQIGluIGEg DQogIHN0YW5kYXJkaXplZCB3YXkgKGZvbGtzIGNhbiB1c2UgdGhlIDMyIGJpdHMgYXMgdGhleSBz ZWUgZml0KS48QlI+VG8gY29tZSB1cCANCiAgd2l0aCBhIGNvbXBsZXRlbHkgZ2VuZXJhbCAibGFt YmRhIGxhYmVsIiBvbmUgY291bGQvc2hvdWxkIGRlZmluZSBib3RoIGEgKGkpIA0KICB3YXZlbGVu Z3RoIGxhYmVsIHNwZWNpZmllZCBpbiBtZXRlcnMgYW5kIChpaSkgYSBmcmVxdWVuY3kgbGFiZWwg c3BlY2lmaWVkIGluIA0KICBIZXJ0eiAoSHopLjxTUEFOPiZuYnNwOyA8L1NQQU4+VGhlc2UgY291 bGQgYmUgc3BlY2lmaWVkIGVpdGhlciB3aXRoIGEgMzIgYml0IA0KICBJRUVFIGZsb2F0aW5nIHBv aW50IG51bWJlciBvciB2aWEgYSBzdWl0YWJsZSAzMiBiaXQgaW50ZWdlciBieSBzdWl0YWJseSAN CiAgYWRqdXN0aW5nIHRoZSBiYXNlIHVuaXRzLjxTUEFOPiZuYnNwOyA8L1NQQU4+V2UgY291bGQg cmVwcmVzZW50IHRoZSBmcmVxdWVuY3kgDQogIHZpYSBhIDMyIGJpdCBpbnRlZ2VyIGluIE1Ieiwg dGhlbiBhIDE5My4xVEh6IGxpZ2h0IHNvdXJjZSBjb3VsZCBiZSANCiAgY2hhcmFjdGVyaXplZCBi eSB0aGUgaW50ZWdlciAxOTMsMTAwLDAwMC4gU2ltaWxhcmx5IHdlIGNvdWxkIHJlcHJlc2VudCB0 aGUgDQogIHdhdmVsZW5ndGggbGFiZWwgdmlhIGEgMzIgYml0IGludGVnZXIgaW4gcGljbyBtZXRl cnMgKDEwLTEyIG1ldGVycyksIHRoZW4gYSANCiAgMTU1MG5tIHdhdmVsZW5ndGggY291bGQgYmUg Y2hhcmFjdGVyaXplZCBieSB0aGUgaW50ZWdlciAxLDU1MCwwMDAuPC9QPg0KICA8UCBjbGFzcz1N c29Ob3JtYWw+PE86UD4mbmJzcDs8L086UD5Ob3cgYW55IG9mIHRoZSBwcmV2aW91cyBmb3JtYXRz IGNvdWxkIGJlIA0KICB1c2VkIHdpdGggdGhlIDMyIGJpdCBsYW1iZGEgbGFiZWwgYWxyZWFkeSBk ZWZpbmVkLjxTUEFOPiZuYnNwOyA8L1NQQU4+VGhlIA0KICBwcm9ibGVtIGhlcmUgaXMgdG8gcGlj ayBhIGZvcm1hdCBmb3IgaW50ZXJvcGVyYWJpbGl0eSBhbmQgY29tcGF0aWJpbGl0eSB3aXRoIA0K ICBwb3RlbnRpYWxseSBjb21tb24gd2F2ZWxlbmd0aCBzd2l0Y2hlZCBjb250cm9sIA0KICBvcGVy YXRpb25zLjxCUj48TzpQPjwvTzpQPklzc3VlcyB3aXRoIHRoZSBwcmV2aW91c2x5IG1lbnRpb25l ZCBmb3JtYXRzOjwvUD4NCiAgPFAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsIHN0eWxlPSJNQVJHSU4tTEVGVDog MC41aW47IFRFWFQtSU5ERU5UOiAtMC4yNWluIj4mbHQ7IS0tW2lmIA0KICAhc3VwcG9ydExpc3Rz XS0tJmd0OzxTUEFOPihhKTxTUEFOIA0KICBzdHlsZT0iRk9OVDogN3B0ICdUaW1lcyBOZXcgUm9t YW4nOyBmb250LXNpemUtYWRqdXN0OiBub25lOyBmb250LXN0cmV0Y2g6IG5vcm1hbCI+Jm5ic3A7 Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7IA0KICA8L1NQQU4+PC9TUEFOPiZsdDshLS1bZW5kaWZdLS0mZ3Q7V2hpbGUg ZmxvYXRpbmcgcG9pbnQgbnVtYmVycyBwcm92aWRlIGdyZWF0IA0KICBmbGV4aWJpbGl0eSwgYXMg YSBsYWJlbCB0aGV5IGhhdmUgaXNzdWVzIHdoZW4gaXQgY29tZXMgdG8gY29tcGFyaXNvbiANCiAg b3BlcmF0aW9ucy48U1BBTj4mbmJzcDsgPC9TUEFOPjwvUD4NCiAgPFAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFs IHN0eWxlPSJNQVJHSU4tTEVGVDogMC41aW47IFRFWFQtSU5ERU5UOiAtMC4yNWluIj4mbHQ7IS0t W2lmIA0KICAhc3VwcG9ydExpc3RzXS0tJmd0OzxTUEFOPihiKTxTUEFOIA0KICBzdHlsZT0iRk9O VDogN3B0ICdUaW1lcyBOZXcgUm9tYW4nOyBmb250LXNpemUtYWRqdXN0OiBub25lOyBmb250LXN0 cmV0Y2g6IG5vcm1hbCI+Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7IA0KICA8L1NQQU4+PC9TUEFOPiZsdDshLS1bZW5k aWZdLS0mZ3Q7QW4gaW50ZWdlciBmb3JtYXQgd2l0aCBhIHN1aXRhYmx5IHNjYWxlZCANCiAgZXhw b25lbnQgaXMgcmVsYXRpdmVseSBzaW1wbGUgYW5kIGp1c3QgbGVhdmVzIHRoZSBjaG9pY2Ugb2Yg k2V4cG9uZW50lCB0byBiZSANCiAgZGVjaWRlZC48L1A+DQogIDxQIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbCBz dHlsZT0iTUFSR0lOLUxFRlQ6IDAuNWluOyBURVhULUlOREVOVDogLTAuMjVpbiI+Jmx0OyEtLVtp ZiANCiAgIXN1cHBvcnRMaXN0c10tLSZndDs8U1BBTj4oYyk8U1BBTiANCiAgc3R5bGU9IkZPTlQ6 IDdwdCAnVGltZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuJzsgZm9udC1zaXplLWFkanVzdDogbm9uZTsgZm9udC1zdHJl dGNoOiBub3JtYWwiPiZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyANCiAgPC9TUEFOPjwvU1BBTj4mbHQ7IS0t W2VuZGlmXS0tJmd0O05laXRoZXIgZm9ybWF0IGNvbnRhaW5zIGFueSCTY29udGV4dJQgDQogIGlu Zm9ybWF0aW9uIGFib3V0IHRoZSBXRE0gc3lzdGVtIGluIGdlbmVyYWwuPC9QPg0KICA8UCBjbGFz cz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+VGhlIGZvcm1hdCBwcm9wb3NlZCBpbiBbT3RhbmldLiBhdm9pZHMgdGhlIGFi b3ZlIHRocmVlIA0KICBpc3N1ZXMgYW5kIGVuaGFuY2VzIGNvbW1vbiBjb250cm9sIHBsYW5lIG9w ZXJhdGlvbnMgYXMgZm9sbG93czo8L1A+DQogIDxQIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbCBzdHlsZT0iTUFS R0lOLUxFRlQ6IDAuNWluOyBURVhULUlOREVOVDogLTAuMjVpbiI+Jmx0OyEtLVtpZiANCiAgIXN1 cHBvcnRMaXN0c10tLSZndDs8U1BBTj4oYSk8U1BBTiANCiAgc3R5bGU9IkZPTlQ6IDdwdCAnVGlt ZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuJzsgZm9udC1zaXplLWFkanVzdDogbm9uZTsgZm9udC1zdHJldGNoOiBub3Jt YWwiPiZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyANCiAgPC9TUEFOPjwvU1BBTj4mbHQ7IS0tW2VuZGlmXS0t Jmd0O1RoZSBmb3JtYXQgaXMgaW50ZWdlciBiYXNlZCwgaGVuY2UgYXZvaWRzIA0KICBpc3N1ZXMg d2l0aCBmbG9hdGluZyBwb2ludCBjb21wYXJpc29ucy48L1A+DQogIDxQIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1h bCBzdHlsZT0iTUFSR0lOLUxFRlQ6IDAuNWluOyBURVhULUlOREVOVDogLTAuMjVpbiI+Jmx0OyEt LVtpZiANCiAgIXN1cHBvcnRMaXN0c10tLSZndDs8U1BBTj4oYik8U1BBTiANCiAgc3R5bGU9IkZP TlQ6IDdwdCAnVGltZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuJzsgZm9udC1zaXplLWFkanVzdDogbm9uZTsgZm9udC1z dHJldGNoOiBub3JtYWwiPiZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyANCiAgPC9TUEFOPjwvU1BBTj4mbHQ7IS0tW2Vu ZGlmXS0tJmd0O1RoZSBmb3JtYXQgaXMgYmFzZWQgb24gdGhlIHdpZGVseSByZWNvZ25pemVkIA0K ICBJVFUtVCBzdGFuZGFyZCBncmlkcyAoSVRVLVQgRy42OTQuMSBhbmQgLjIpIGFuZCBmb3N0ZXJz IGludGVyb3BlcmFiaWxpdHkgbW9yZSANCiAgdGhhbiBwb3RlbnRpYWxseSBhbnkgb3RoZXIgY2hv aWNlLiZuYnNwOzxTUEFOPjwvU1BBTj48L1A+DQogIDxQIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbCBzdHlsZT0i TUFSR0lOLUxFRlQ6IDAuNWluOyBURVhULUlOREVOVDogLTAuMjVpbiI+Jmx0OyEtLVtpZiANCiAg IXN1cHBvcnRMaXN0c10tLSZndDs8U1BBTj4oYyk8U1BBTiANCiAgc3R5bGU9IkZPTlQ6IDdwdCAn VGltZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuJzsgZm9udC1zaXplLWFkanVzdDogbm9uZTsgZm9udC1zdHJldGNoOiBu b3JtYWwiPiZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyANCiAgPC9TUEFOPjwvU1BBTj4mbHQ7IS0tW2VuZGlm XS0tJmd0O1RoZSBJVFUtVCBncmlkcyBjb21lIGluIHZhcmlvdXMgd2lkdGhzIGFuZCANCiAgaGVu Y2UgaGF2ZSBhbiBpbmhlcmVudCBncm93dGggcGF0aC48L1A+DQogIDxQIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1h bCBzdHlsZT0iTUFSR0lOLUxFRlQ6IDAuNWluOyBURVhULUlOREVOVDogLTAuMjVpbiI+Jmx0OyEt LVtpZiANCiAgIXN1cHBvcnRMaXN0c10tLSZndDs8U1BBTj4oZCk8U1BBTiANCiAgc3R5bGU9IkZP TlQ6IDdwdCAnVGltZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuJzsgZm9udC1zaXplLWFkanVzdDogbm9uZTsgZm9udC1z dHJldGNoOiBub3JtYWwiPiZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOyANCiAgPC9TUEFOPjwvU1BBTj4mbHQ7IS0tW2Vu ZGlmXS0tJmd0O1RoZSBJVFUtVCBncmlkcyBjb21lIGluIGJvdGggZnJlcXVlbmN5IA0KICAoRy42 OTQuMSkgYW5kIHdhdmVsZW5ndGggKEcuNjk0LjIpIGZsYXZvcmVkIHZlcnNpb25zIGFuIGJvdGgg YXJlIGluY29ycG9yYXRlZCANCiAgaW4gdGhlIFtPdGFuaV0gbGFiZWwgZm9ybWF0LjwvUD4NCiAg PFAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsIHN0eWxlPSJNQVJHSU4tTEVGVDogMC41aW47IFRFWFQtSU5ERU5U OiAtMC4yNWluIj4mbHQ7IS0tW2lmIA0KICAhc3VwcG9ydExpc3RzXS0tJmd0OzxTUEFOPihlKTxT UEFOIA0KICBzdHlsZT0iRk9OVDogN3B0ICdUaW1lcyBOZXcgUm9tYW4nOyBmb250LXNpemUtYWRq dXN0OiBub25lOyBmb250LXN0cmV0Y2g6IG5vcm1hbCI+Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7IA0KICA8 L1NQQU4+PC9TUEFOPiZsdDshLS1bZW5kaWZdLS0mZ3Q7VGhlIGZvcm1hdCBpbmNsdWRlcyBpbmZv cm1hdGlvbiBvbiB0aGUgZ3JpZCANCiAgc3BhY2luZyB3aGljaCBpcyBpbXBvcnRhbnQgV0RNIGNv bnRleHQgaW5mb3JtYXRpb24gdXNlZnVsIGluIG1hbnkgbGFiZWwgDQogIHNlbGVjdGlvbiBwcm9j ZXNzZXMuPFNQQU4+Jm5ic3A7IDwvU1BBTj5Gb3IgZXhhbXBsZSBhIHR1bmFibGUgbGFzZXIgYXNz b2NpYXRlZCANCiAgd2l0aCBhIDUwR0h6IHNwYWNpbmcgV0RNIHN5c3RlbSBjb3VsZCBzcGVjaWZ5 IGFjY2VwdGFibGUgbGFiZWwgcmFuZ2UgdmlhIHRoZSANCiAgaW5jbHVzaXZlIHJhbmdlIGxhYmVs IHNldCBtZWNoYW5pc20uPFNQQU4+Jm5ic3A7IDwvU1BBTj5Ob3RlIHRoYXQgb25seSB0aG9zZSAN CiAgZnJlcXVlbmNpZXMgKGxhYmVscykgdGhhdCBmYWxsIG9uIHRoZSBncmlkIGFyZSBzdXBwb3J0 ZWQgYW5kIG5vdCBpbnRlcm1lZGlhdGUgDQogIGZyZXF1ZW5jaWVzLjwvUD4NCiAgPFAgY2xhc3M9 TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxPOlA+PC9POlA+PEJSPkF0IHRoZSBDQ0FNUCBXRyBtZWV0aW5nIGluIFZhbmNv dXZlciBpdCB3YXMgDQogIHBvaW50ZWQgb3V0IChieSBMb3UgQmVyZ2VyKSB0aGF0IHNpbmNlIGEg bGFtYmRhIGxhYmVsIGFscmVhZHkgZXhpc3RzIGFuZCB0aGF0IA0KICBleGlzdGluZyBpbXBsZW1l bnRhdGlvbnMgbWF5IG1ha2UgdXNlIG9mIGl0IHRoYXQgdGhlIHByb3Bvc2VkIGxhYmVsIG9mIFtP dGFuaV0gDQogIHdvdWxkIGJlIGJldHRlciBvZmYgcmVmZXJyZWQgdG8gYXMgYSCTRy42OTQgbGFi ZWyULiBXaXRoIHN1Y2ggYSBjaGFuZ2UgSSB0aGluayANCiAgdGhhdCB0aGlzIGxhYmVsIGZvcm1h dCAoYW5kIGFjY29tcGFueWluZyBkcmFmdCkgc2hvdWxkIG1vdmUgZm9yd2FyZCBhcyBhIA0KICB3 b3JraW5nIGdyb3VwIGRvY3VtZW50LjxCUj48L1A+DQogIDxQIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD5Db21t ZW50cywgc3VnZ2VzdGlvbnMsIGlzc3Vlcz88QlI+PC9QPg0KICA8UCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+ UmVnYXJkczxCUj48L1A+DQogIDxQIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD5HcmVnIEIuPEJSPjwvUD48UFJF IGNsYXNzPW1vei1zaWduYXR1cmUgY29scz0iNzIiPi0tIA0KPT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09 PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09DQpEciBHcmVnIEJlcm5zdGVpbiwgR3JvdHRv IE5ldHdvcmtpbmcgKDUxMCkgNTczLTIyMzcNCg0KPC9QUkU+PC9CTE9DS1FVT1RFPjwvQk9EWT48 L0hUTUw+DQo= --Boundary_(ID_Ad810cjgjsTDLe8cI94HZA)-- Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 19:12:23 +0000 Message-ID: <4762AA56.6050207@chello.nl> Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:07:50 +0100 From: Huub van Helvoort User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Aaron Daubman CC: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: Question on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-vcat-lcas and VCG Member Sharing Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Aaron, See my replies in-line [hvh]: > I have been looking over draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-vcat-lcas-03, as well > as G.707 and G.7042, and have not been able to reconcile how the > member sharing functionality would be accomplished. > > Am I understanding this feature correctly: > - A member that was not previously part of a VCG may be hitlessly added to a VCG [hvh] an LSP only becomes member of a VCG if it is assigned to that particalar VCG by the management system (usinf ASON/GMPLS). When assigned it will have the IDLE state. > - A member of another VCG (presumably IDLE) may be removed from that > VCG and added to another as demand dictates [hvh] actually this will involve two steps: - remove (= unassign) the member from one VGG by mamnagement - add (= assign) the member to (another) VCG by management You are right in assuming that only IDLE members should be removed, although the LCAS protocol is robust enough to withstand removal of NORM/EOS?DNU members. > - There could be a pool of provisioned but IDLE members of some > 'shared' VCG that can be added to or removed from others as necessary [hvh] right, if you mean that the path is provisioned > If the above is (basically) correct, what functionality would carry this out? [hvh] the management sytem, note that this has to be perfromed at both ends (source AND sink) of the VCG. Note also that the (un-)asignment is NOT supported by the LCAS protocol. > I assume that one would have to modify the GID of such members on the > fly... and LCAS doesn't seem to currently maintain this functionality. [hvh] No, as soon as an LSP bcomes a member of a VCG the GID will be inserted automatically by the termination function, it does not have to be provisioned. Added members will always have the IDLE state. > Would this be left up to the implementation of the NMS if it supports > GMPLS, or are (portions) of these features being added to LCAS? [hvh] as mentioned above (un-)assignemnt is initiated by mangement the LCAS procedure does the hitless delete/add of a member (payload). > In particular, I am wondering what signaling in G.7042 would allow the > addition of a new member to an existing VCG as stated below: > """ > Following the addition of the new label to the LSP, LCAS may be used > in-band to add the new label into the existing VCAT group. LCAS > signaling for this function is described in [ITU-T-G.7042]. > """ [hvh] this is the last step, the LCAS function takes care of the hitless addition by synchronising source and sink. > As far as I have been able to tell, LCAS currently can only modify > pre-existing members of a VCG. I have not been able to identify any > functionality which would allow a new member to be added to a VCG - am > I missing something? [hvh] the assigning of an LSP to a VCG is management reponsability it will then become member of that VCG. The addition/removal of a member for active participation in the VCG is initiated by management and finished by the LCAS protocol. > Perhaps I am misunderstand LCAS' ADD functionality. It is my > understanding that an LCAS ADD does not actually add a new member to a > VCG, but merely sets an IDLE member of a VCG to become active in the > VCG (e.g. NORM/EOS). Regardless of whether a VCG member is IDLE or > in-use, it will share the same GID as all other members of the VCG. [hvh] your understanding is right. > Any clarification would be much appreciated. I hope I did, if you need more clarification you can find it on the site below. Cheers, Huub. -- ================================================================ http://www.van-helvoort.eu/ ================================================================ Always remember that you are unique...just like everyone else... Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:06:46 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Question on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-vcat-lcas and VCG Member Sharing Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:05:47 -0000 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Question on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-vcat-lcas and VCG Member Sharing Thread-Index: Acg+aos7kmLW3KR9R36NDCMFvbrOkgABOz8g From: "Trevor Wilson" To: "Aaron Daubman" , Aaron, Please see my responses in-line below; annotated by [TW on/TW off] Regards, Trevor Trevor Wilson Nortel Networks (UK) Tel: +44 2890 363701 ESN: 751 3701 E-mail: wilsont@nortel.com Confidentiality Notice: This message and any attachments may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If you have reason to believe that you are not the intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering this message to an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have reason to believe that you are not the intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering this message to an intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. -----Original Message----- From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Aaron Daubman Sent: 14 December 2007 15:34 To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: Question on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-vcat-lcas and VCG Member Sharing Greetings, Apologies in advance if it is inappropriate to pose such questions here... I have been looking over draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-vcat-lcas-03, as well as G.707 and G.7042, and have not been able to reconcile how the member sharing functionality would be accomplished. Am I understanding this feature correctly: - A member that was not previously part of a VCG may be hitlessly added to a VCG [TW on] Correct [TW off] - A member of another VCG (presumably IDLE) may be removed from that VCG and added to another as demand dictates [TW on] Correct [TW off] - There could be a pool of provisioned but IDLE members of some 'shared' VCG that can be added to or removed from others as necessary [TW on] Hmmm.... A VCG member, even in the IDLE state is still a member of ONE VCG. It can of course be removed from that VCG and provisioned into another VCG. This is outside the scope of the LCAS Recommendation G.7042.This movement from one VCG to another VCG is a management action and does not require the use of the LCAS protocol. [TW off] If the above is (basically) correct, what functionality would carry this out? I assume that one would have to modify the GID of such members on the fly... and LCAS doesn't seem to currently maintain this functionality. [TW on] All members of a VCG will have the same GID. If a member belongs to another VCG it will have a different GID. Only active VCG member's GIDs will be used at the source. [TW off] Would this be left up to the implementation of the NMS if it supports GMPLS, or are (portions) of these features being added to LCAS? [TW on] Allocation of a member to a VCG is a management function and not part pf the LCAS protocol. [TW off] In particular, I am wondering what signaling in G.7042 would allow the addition of a new member to an existing VCG as stated below: """ Following the addition of the new label to the LSP, LCAS may be used in-band to add the new label into the existing VCAT group. LCAS signaling for this function is described in [ITU-T-G.7042]. """ [TW on] After a member is provisioned to the VCG it will be in the IDLE state; thereafter it can be ADDed to the VCG active group by the ADD command. [TW on] As far as I have been able to tell, LCAS currently can only modify pre-existing members of a VCG. I have not been able to identify any functionality which would allow a new member to be added to a VCG - am I missing something? [TW on] No. You haven't missed anything. As stated previously in my reply: inclusion of a member into a VCG is a management function initially put into the IDLE state and thereafter ADDed to the active VCG by the ADD command. [TW off] Perhaps I am misunderstand LCAS' ADD functionality. It is my understanding that an LCAS ADD does not actually add a new member to a VCG, but merely sets an IDLE member of a VCG to become active in the VCG (e.g. NORM/EOS). Regardless of whether a VCG member is IDLE or in-use, it will share the same GID as all other members of the VCG. [TW on] Correct] TW off] Any clarification would be much appreciated. Thank you, Aaron Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 16:39:31 +0000 Message-ID: <4762B17B.5080308@grotto-networking.com> Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 08:38:19 -0800 From: Greg Bernstein User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Aaron Daubman CC: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: Question on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-vcat-lcas and VCG Member Sharing Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Aaron, see comments below. Aaron Daubman wrote: > Greetings, > > Apologies in advance if it is inappropriate to pose such questions here... > > I have been looking over draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-vcat-lcas-03, as well > as G.707 and G.7042, and have not been able to reconcile how the > member sharing functionality would be accomplished. > > Am I understanding this feature correctly: > - A member that was not previously part of a VCG may be hitlessly added to a VCG > Yes. > - A member of another VCG (presumably IDLE) may be removed from that > VCG and added to another as demand dictates > Yes. > - There could be a pool of provisioned but IDLE members of some > 'shared' VCG that can be added to or removed from others as necessary > No. The pool is of server layer connections between the same "endpoints", that could be put into one VCG or another. > If the above is (basically) correct, what functionality would carry this out? > > I assume that one would have to modify the GID of such members on the > fly... and LCAS doesn't seem to currently maintain this functionality. > --> GID == Group IDentification, a pseudo random bit sequence that is used to identify one LCAS VCAT group from another and transmitted in the LCAS control packet from source to sink. This "control packet" is sent in overhead bytes/bits that accompany the server layer signal. It is the source LCAS entities responsibility to set this information not GMPLS signaling. After successfully establishing the lower layer connection via GMPLS, the internal LCAS entity at the source should be notified so that it can set its value. How this would be done is out of scope of the draft and an internal matter. > Would this be left up to the implementation of the NMS if it supports > GMPLS, or are (portions) of these features being added to LCAS? > --> Either the NMS(?) software or control plane software supporting GMPLS would need to talk to the LCAS entity. > In particular, I am wondering what signaling in G.7042 would allow the > addition of a new member to an existing VCG as stated below: > """ > Following the addition of the new label to the LSP, LCAS may be used > in-band to add the new label into the existing VCAT group. LCAS > signaling for this function is described in [ITU-T-G.7042]. > """ > > As far as I have been able to tell, LCAS currently can only modify > pre-existing members of a VCG. I have not been able to identify any > functionality which would allow a new member to be added to a VCG - am > I missing something? > --> GMPLS can set up connections. LCAS is used to add them to a group. > Perhaps I am misunderstand LCAS' ADD functionality. It is my > understanding that an LCAS ADD does not actually add a new member to a > VCG, but merely sets an IDLE member of a VCG to become active in the > VCG (e.g. NORM/EOS). Regardless of whether a VCG member is IDLE or > in-use, it will share the same GID as all other members of the VCG. > --> Yes. A bit of a misunderstanding. As you say you'd first need the LCAS entity to set the GID (so we know this connection should be part of the group) and when that's successful we should be in the IDLE state and from their we can issue the ADD message. The key is that LCAS can't set up a new connection only put an existing connection into use (we use GMPLS to set up the connection). > Any clarification would be much appreciated. > Hope this helps. Greg B. > Thank you, > Aaron > > > -- =================================================== Dr Greg Bernstein, Grotto Networking (510) 573-2237 Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 16:18:46 +0000 Message-ID: <4762AC75.3090304@grotto-networking.com> Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 08:16:53 -0800 From: Greg Bernstein User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ccamp Subject: On Labels for Wavelength Switched Optical Networks... Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040908000103070203060209" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------040908000103070203060209 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi folks, at the Vancouver meeting the lambda label format of Otani, et. al. draft-otani-ccamp-gmpls-lambda-labels-01.txt [Otani] was presented for a second time and a few new issues seemed to arise. I'm writing this note to see if we can resolve these on the list so this work can move forward, since the label format is valuable, in general, to the control of wavelength switched optical networks (WSON). First, a general 32 bit lambda label has been defined in RFC3471. This previous label does not directly relate to either the wavelength or frequency of the light used in a lambda LSP in a standardized way (folks can use the 32 bits as they see fit). To come up with a completely general "lambda label" one could/should define both a (i) wavelength label specified in meters and (ii) a frequency label specified in Hertz (Hz). These could be specified either with a 32 bit IEEE floating point number or via a suitable 32 bit integer by suitably adjusting the base units. We could represent the frequency via a 32 bit integer in MHz, then a 193.1THz light source could be characterized by the integer 193,100,000. Similarly we could represent the wavelength label via a 32 bit integer in pico meters (10-12 meters), then a 1550nm wavelength could be characterized by the integer 1,550,000. Now any of the previous formats could be used with the 32 bit lambda label already defined. The problem here is to pick a format for interoperability and compatibility with potentially common wavelength switched control operations. Issues with the previously mentioned formats: (a) While floating point numbers provide great flexibility, as a label they have issues when it comes to comparison operations. (b) An integer format with a suitably scaled exponent is relatively simple and just leaves the choice of "exponent" to be decided. (c) Neither format contains any "context" information about the WDM system in general. The format proposed in [Otani]. avoids the above three issues and enhances common control plane operations as follows: (a) The format is integer based, hence avoids issues with floating point comparisons. (b) The format is based on the widely recognized ITU-T standard grids (ITU-T G.694.1 and .2) and fosters interoperability more than potentially any other choice. (c) The ITU-T grids come in various widths and hence have an inherent growth path. (d) The ITU-T grids come in both frequency (G.694.1) and wavelength (G.694.2) flavored versions an both are incorporated in the [Otani] label format. (e) The format includes information on the grid spacing which is important WDM context information useful in many label selection processes. For example a tunable laser associated with a 50GHz spacing WDM system could specify acceptable label range via the inclusive range label set mechanism. Note that only those frequencies (labels) that fall on the grid are supported and not intermediate frequencies. At the CCAMP WG meeting in Vancouver it was pointed out (by Lou Berger) that since a lambda label already exists and that existing implementations may make use of it that the proposed label of [Otani] would be better off referred to as a "G.694 label". With such a change I think that this label format (and accompanying draft) should move forward as a working group document. Comments, suggestions, issues? Regards Greg B. -- =================================================== Dr Greg Bernstein, Grotto Networking (510) 573-2237 --------------040908000103070203060209 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi folks, at the Vancouver meeting the lambda label format of Otani, et. al. draft-otani-ccamp-gmpls-lambda-labels-01.txt [Otani] was presented for a second time and a few new issues seemed to arise. I'm writing this note to see if we can resolve these on the list so this work can move forward, since the label format is valuable, in general, to the control of wavelength switched optical networks (WSON).

First, a general 32 bit lambda label has been defined in RFC3471.  This previous label does not directly relate to either the wavelength or frequency of the light used in a lambda LSP in a standardized way (folks can use the 32 bits as they see fit).
To come up with a completely general "lambda label" one could/should define both a (i) wavelength label specified in meters and (ii) a frequency label specified in Hertz (Hz).  These could be specified either with a 32 bit IEEE floating point number or via a suitable 32 bit integer by suitably adjusting the base units.  We could represent the frequency via a 32 bit integer in MHz, then a 193.1THz light source could be characterized by the integer 193,100,000. Similarly we could represent the wavelength label via a 32 bit integer in pico meters (10-12 meters), then a 1550nm wavelength could be characterized by the integer 1,550,000.

 Now any of the previous formats could be used with the 32 bit lambda label already defined.  The problem here is to pick a format for interoperability and compatibility with potentially common wavelength switched control operations.
Issues with the previously mentioned formats:

(a)    While floating point numbers provide great flexibility, as a label they have issues when it comes to comparison operations. 

(b)   An integer format with a suitably scaled exponent is relatively simple and just leaves the choice of “exponent” to be decided.

(c)    Neither format contains any “context” information about the WDM system in general.

The format proposed in [Otani]. avoids the above three issues and enhances common control plane operations as follows:

(a)    The format is integer based, hence avoids issues with floating point comparisons.

(b)   The format is based on the widely recognized ITU-T standard grids (ITU-T G.694.1 and .2) and fosters interoperability more than potentially any other choice. 

(c)    The ITU-T grids come in various widths and hence have an inherent growth path.

(d)   The ITU-T grids come in both frequency (G.694.1) and wavelength (G.694.2) flavored versions an both are incorporated in the [Otani] label format.

(e)    The format includes information on the grid spacing which is important WDM context information useful in many label selection processes.  For example a tunable laser associated with a 50GHz spacing WDM system could specify acceptable label range via the inclusive range label set mechanism.  Note that only those frequencies (labels) that fall on the grid are supported and not intermediate frequencies.

 
At the CCAMP WG meeting in Vancouver it was pointed out (by Lou Berger) that since a lambda label already exists and that existing implementations may make use of it that the proposed label of [Otani] would be better off referred to as a “G.694 label”. With such a change I think that this label format (and accompanying draft) should move forward as a working group document.

Comments, suggestions, issues?

Regards

Greg B.

-- 
===================================================
Dr Greg Bernstein, Grotto Networking (510) 573-2237
--------------040908000103070203060209-- Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:36:15 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; bh=sAfRaOYLK1pU2jGd4aS3oncsH/UOkja9jTukwnjjXyw=; b=n2P1YIR3z0IVpAITUaHmmcQy2oo7b/xTZmMt4l8WisslOQpt9pPQNx/WCsTGzZWdQYNFLdyfGmpN2PS4d2B4326eHIyEIOLQIUSs5/MaWoRy//RbTqYVlgv8QmYLkCRL40Q+WE5ceDSErCXRmXR0a7aQ6+09jPZoOnb4EfpGM1w= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; b=Sa9JdN3lwb3n3ZeWTFxns/1U1Ey6xO4E0qWDwAH7NqLlfgvj/UI0Er0dGjt09Ux6kGDOAARIm/mhY+3uHOCidTaM8I96LCpMTdbZLapVUDHFG5uhxAeFmLQwxyaETf51jgz1oKkN5cMcqZFVdjc06RMg4XZDFhmQfYPb0dmFcCo= Message-ID: Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:33:30 -0500 From: "Aaron Daubman" To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: Question on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-vcat-lcas and VCG Member Sharing MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Greetings, Apologies in advance if it is inappropriate to pose such questions here... I have been looking over draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-vcat-lcas-03, as well as G.707 and G.7042, and have not been able to reconcile how the member sharing functionality would be accomplished. Am I understanding this feature correctly: - A member that was not previously part of a VCG may be hitlessly added to a VCG - A member of another VCG (presumably IDLE) may be removed from that VCG and added to another as demand dictates - There could be a pool of provisioned but IDLE members of some 'shared' VCG that can be added to or removed from others as necessary If the above is (basically) correct, what functionality would carry this out? I assume that one would have to modify the GID of such members on the fly... and LCAS doesn't seem to currently maintain this functionality. Would this be left up to the implementation of the NMS if it supports GMPLS, or are (portions) of these features being added to LCAS? In particular, I am wondering what signaling in G.7042 would allow the addition of a new member to an existing VCG as stated below: """ Following the addition of the new label to the LSP, LCAS may be used in-band to add the new label into the existing VCAT group. LCAS signaling for this function is described in [ITU-T-G.7042]. """ As far as I have been able to tell, LCAS currently can only modify pre-existing members of a VCG. I have not been able to identify any functionality which would allow a new member to be added to a VCG - am I missing something? Perhaps I am misunderstand LCAS' ADD functionality. It is my understanding that an LCAS ADD does not actually add a new member to a VCG, but merely sets an IDLE member of a VCG to become active in the VCG (e.g. NORM/EOS). Regardless of whether a VCG member is IDLE or in-use, it will share the same GID as all other members of the VCG. Any clarification would be much appreciated. Thank you, Aaron Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 23:07:37 +0000 To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org Subject: RFC 5073 on IGP Routing Protocol Extensions for Discovery of Traffic Engineering Node Capabilities From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, ccamp@ops.ietf.org Message-Id: <20071212230501.5EE4FFF1FD@bosco.isi.edu> Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:05:01 -0800 (PST) A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 5073 Title: IGP Routing Protocol Extensions for Discovery of Traffic Engineering Node Capabilities Author: J.P. Vasseur, Ed., J.L. Le Roux, Ed. Status: Standards Track Date: December 2007 Mailbox: jpv@cisco.com, jeanlouis.leroux@orange-ftgroup.com Pages: 13 Characters: 27004 Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None I-D Tag: draft-ietf-ccamp-te-node-cap-05.txt URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5073.txt It is highly desired, in several cases, to take into account Traffic Engineering (TE) node capabilities during Multi Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineered Label Switched Path (TE-LSP) selection, such as, for instance, the capability to act as a branch Label Switching Router (LSR) of a Point-To-MultiPoint (P2MP) LSP. This requires advertising these capabilities within the Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP). For that purpose, this document specifies Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) and Intermediate System-Intermediate System (IS-IS) traffic engineering extensions for the advertisement of control plane and data plane traffic engineering node capabilities. [STANDARDS TRACK] This document is a product of the Common Control and Measurement Plane Working Group of the IETF. This is now a Proposed Standard Protocol. STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community,and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.Please refer to the current edition of the Internet Official Protocol Standards (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF list and the RFC-DIST list. Requests to be added to or deleted from the IETF distribution list should be sent to IETF-REQUEST@IETF.ORG. Requests to be added to or deleted from the RFC-DIST distribution list should be sent to RFC-DIST-REQUEST@RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Details on obtaining RFCs via FTP or EMAIL may be obtained by sending an EMAIL message to rfc-info@RFC-EDITOR.ORG with the message body help: ways_to_get_rfcs. For example: To: rfc-info@RFC-EDITOR.ORG Subject: getting rfcs help: ways_to_get_rfcs Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to RFC-Manager@RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. Submissions for Requests for Comments should be sent to RFC-EDITOR@RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Please consult RFC 2223, Instructions to RFC Authors, for further information. The RFC Editor Team USC/Information Sciences Institute ... Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 14:14:46 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Cc: Ashok Narayanan , Jukka Manner MJ , allan GUILLOU , hemant.malik@airtel.in, tsvwg tsvwg , Le Faucheur Francois Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Francois Le Faucheur IMAP Subject: Re: CCAMP Vancouver comments on draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-proxy-proto Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:12:10 +0100 To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2698; t=1197295941; x=1198159941; c=relaxed/simple; s=amsdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=flefauch@cisco.com; z=From:=20Francois=20Le=20Faucheur=20IMAP=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20CCAMP=20Vancouver=20comments=20on=20dra ft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-proxy-proto |Sender:=20; bh=k/guwalT0lZwkKYy+MUmpGLpCv5YlhKXm9HqkfARFTQ=; b=l8nUtlGzH4OQ6gYRTEIO/aSBnW+NOwAa0YCB1/sBckqlqDNcBzLLgUMiS+ 0OK9/dq2UB2MAwGK9UP4ONIQCu0YkutLHIsKah5nmaJXWOKcrXcwQSqIOlys rVCxSodMBW; Authentication-Results: ams-dkim-2; header.From=flefauch@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/amsdkim2001 verified; ); Hi, Just following up on the good suggestions we received during the rsvp- proxy-proto preso in CCAMP WG. Below is a recap of the comments and proposed changes to rsvp-proxy- proto in order to reflect those. Comments welcome. Thanks again to CCAMP WG. Francois 1) Processing of "Downstream Errors" by Sender ==================================== With Notify approach, the sender not only has to support Notify, but it also has to process "downstream errors". It is worth making this explicit. To that effect, I propose that: Under section "3.2. Sender Notification via Notify Message". We replace: " Note, however, that such benefits come at the cost of more sophistication and of a requirement for RSVP routers and senders to support the Notify messages and procedures defined in [RFC3473]. " by " Note, however, that such benefits come with some costs including : o more sophistication o a requirement for RSVP routers and senders to support the Notify messages and procedures defined in [RFC3473] o a requirement for senders to process downstream error messages. " 2) Sending Notify in-addition/instead of PathErr ==================================== Current text does not discuss whether the two methods (PathErr and Notify) are exclusive or additive (ie use Notify in addition to PathErr). There was also concern expressed about Notify messages being less reliable than PathErr and thus it may be safer to get Notify issued in-addition to PathErr (and not instead). On the other hands there are environments where not sending the PathErr (ie send Notify only) could help scalability. Hence we propose a recommended approach on the safe side (ie send both Notify and PathErr) with an optional approach allowing better scalability (ie send Notify only). To that effect, I propose that: At the end of section "3.2. Sender Notification via Notify Message", We add: " When the method of sender notification via Notify message is used, it is RECOMMENDED that the RSVP Receiver Proxy also issues sender notification via a PathErr message. This maximizes the chances that the notification reaches the sender in all situations (e.g. even if some RSVP routers do not support the Notify procedure, or if a Notify message gets dropped). However, for controlled environments (e.g. where all RSVP routers are known to support Notify procedures) and where it is desirable to minimize the volume of signaling, the RSVP Receiver Proxy MAY rely exclusively on sender notification via Notify message and thus not issue sender notification via PathErr message. " Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 04:53:34 +0000 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D Action:draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-04.txt Message-Id: Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 23:50:02 -0500 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Common Control and Measurement Plane Working Group of the IETF. Title : OSPFv2 Extensions for ASON Routing Author(s) : D. Papadimitriou, I. Property Filename : draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-04.txt Pages : 23 Date : 2007-12-07 The Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) suite of protocols has been defined to control different switching technologies as well as different applications. These include support for requesting TDM connections including SONET/SDH and Optical Transport Networks (OTNs). This document provides the extensions of the OSPFv2 Link State Routing Protocol to meet the routing requirements for an Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON) as defined by ITU-T. D.Papadimitriou - Expires June 2008 [page 1] draft-dimitri-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-04.txt A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-04.txt To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to i-d-announce-request@ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce to change your subscription settings. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-04.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-04.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2007-12-07234038.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-04.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-04.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2007-12-07234038.I-D\@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 19:24:17 +0000 Message-ID: <47584C19.9020204@pi.se> Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 20:23:05 +0100 From: Loa Andersson Organization: Acreo AB User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: neil.2.harrison@bt.com CC: danli@huawei.com, diego.caviglia@ericsson.com, Attila.Takacs@ericsson.com, tnadeau@lucidvision.com, ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit yes - that was what I asked :) /Loa neil.2.harrison@bt.com wrote: > Loa, >> With that it we should just go ahead and accept this as a >> ccamp work item. > If you are asking whether this should be adopted as a WG item then I am in favour. > > regards, neil > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Loa Andersson [mailto:loa@pi.se] >> Sent: 05 December 2007 20:37 >> To: Dan Li >> Cc: Diego Caviglia; Harrison,N,Neil,DMN R; Attila Takacs; >> tnadeau@lucidvision.com; ccamp@ops.ietf.org >> Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt >> >> >> All, >> >> I'm normally a bit careful with models "layer networks" that >> seems to be a rather cumbersome way of explaining the >> obvious; however in this case when it is used demonstrate >> that no layer violation is at hand I is inclined to accept >> that result. >> >> I also agree with Dan that it seems to be a good idea to use >> RSVP-TE to provision OAM functionality is a good idea. >> >> With that it we should just go ahead and accept this as a >> ccamp work item. >> >> /Loa >> >> Dan Li wrote: >>> MessageHi, >>> >>> I think there is a misunderstanding with respect to the >> objective of >>> this draft. >>> >>> As I read this draft, it describes how to extend the RSVP protocol >> to support the configuration/enable the OAM function of Ethernet LSP, >> >> which I think is a good thing to do, it is not saying to use signaling >> >> protocol to do the OAM work. But anyway, it may be necessary >> to clarify >> >> the objective at the beginning of this draft. >>> Regards, >>> >>> Dan >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: Diego Caviglia >>> To: neil.2.harrison@bt.com ; Attila Takacs ; >> tnadeau@lucidvision.com >>> Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org >>> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 12:27 AM >>> Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt >>> >>> >>> Hi Neil, >>> >>> Yes I totally agree with your analysis. >>> >>> >>> >>> The is not going to redefine or reinvent the OAM that, as >> Thomas as >>> pointed out, is done by IEEE, the ID just specify how to >> use a control >>> plane mechanism (GMPLS) set-up at the same time data plane >> circuit and >>> the related OAM. >>> >>> >>> >>> Frankly specking I don't see any layer violation here. >>> >>> >>> >>> BR >>> >>> >>> >>> Diego >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> -------- >>> >>> From: neil.2.harrison@bt.com [mailto:neil.2.harrison@bt.com] >>> Sent: martedì 4 dicembre 2007 22.55 >>> To: Attila Takacs; tnadeau@lucidvision.com; Diego Caviglia >>> Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org >>> Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt >>> >>> >>> >>> I'm puzzled. I read the draft and thought it was >> excellent. It is addressing an important operational issue, >> ie a critical operational OAM requirement is to ensure that >> whatever mechanism (MP or CP) is used to set-up/tear-down a >> connection (so this only applies to co-cs or co-ps >> modes....the cl-ps mode does not have connections of course) >> is harmonised to the activation/deactivation of the >> OAM.....specifically a CV/CC flow. If we don't ensure this >> then there will be obvious operational problems. This is >> essentially what the draft is about. >>> >>> >>> Further, GMPLS is a generic OOB CP technique.....it is not a >>> specific layer network technology per se (but it is >> specific in it's >>> choice of signalling and routing components). So one can apply a >>> largely similar (GMPLS) CP technique to all co-cs mode technologies >>> (whether they are partitioning a space, freq or time resource - see >>> Note) and co-ps mode technologies (which only applies to >> partitioning >>> a time resource - see Note) on the assumption that the >> technology is >>> correctly architected in the DP for the mode considered. >> It's pretty >>> hard not to correctly architect the co-cs mode, but it's >> quite easy to >>> incorrectly architect the co-ps mode, eg one can't violate >> the rules >>> of a connection in the co-cs mode but one can in the co-ps mode. >>> >>> >>> >>> Note - When we partition a time resource in regular >> time-slices we >>> create a co-cs mode layer network. When we partition a >> time resource >>> in irregular time-slices we create a co-ps mode layer >> network. More >>> information on labelling and resource partitioning can be >> found in the >>> work on unified modelling (of networks) in G.800. >>> >>> >>> >>> regards, Neil >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org >> [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Attila Takacs >>> Sent: 05 December 2007 02:03 >>> To: Thomas Nadeau; Diego Caviglia >>> Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org >>> Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt >>> >>> Hi Tom, >>> >>> please see inline. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Attila >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ---- >>> >>> From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com] >>> Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 2:19 AM >>> To: Diego Caviglia >>> Cc: Attila Takacs; ccamp@ops.ietf.org; >> balazs.gero@ericsson.com >>> Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt >>> >>> >>> >>> On Dec 4, 2007, at 7:33 PM, Diego Caviglia wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi Thomas, >>> >>> My understanding of the ID was that >> RSVP-TE can >>> be used to 'piggyback' CFM set-up, otherwise the scenario >> is: usage of >>> RSVP-TE to set-up the LSP and NMS (meaning everything that is not >>> control plane) to enable to CFM for the LSP. >>> >>> >>> >>> As I understand it, the IEEE is working on set-up of CFM (and >>> MEPs), as are some vendors I know. *) >>> >>> This to me seems like the right way to do this. >>> >>> >>> >>> IEEE specified CFM and MIBs to setup CFM. >>> >>> Diego's summary is correct: one can use an NMS or a >> control plane >>> to setup the data plane. In this case we propose to use >> GMPLS to setup >>> the data plane: both forwarding + OAM. >>> >>> From your comment I see that you're not happy with the fact >>> the ID is so technology specific am I right? >>> >>> >>> >>> Precisely; its gluing CFM to RSVP-TE/GMPLS as a transport. >>> >>> I do not see your point with gluing. What do you mean by "as >>> transport"? GMPLS is just controlling OAM, CFM is run solely in the >>> data plane. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> If yes do you agree with the fact that could be useful in >>> general to use the same signaling 'session' to set-up the >> LSP and to >>> enable the CFM? >>> >>> >>> >>> No, I do not agree. Again, if CFM is to be set-up >> e2e, let the >>> IEEE define this. Leave GMPLS to CCAMP. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Sorry, I cannot follow. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> --Tom >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Best Regards >>> >>> >>> Diego >>> >>> >>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ---- >>> >>> From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org >> [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Nadeau >>> Sent: martedì 4 dicembre 2007 11.30 >>> To: Attila Takacs >>> Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com >>> Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt >>> >>> On Dec 4, 2007, at 1:51 PM, Attila Takacs wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi Thomas, >>> >>> Thank you for the comments! >>> >>> Please see answers inline. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Attila >>> >>> >>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> -- >>> >>> From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com] >>> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 2:58 PM >>> To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org >>> Cc: Attila Takacs; balazs.gero@ericsson.com >>> Subject: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt >>> >>> After reading this draft, I have some questions/comments. >>> >>> 1) Overall, I am concerned that the definition of a new TLV >>> and these procedures represent >>> >>> what amounts to a laying violation and ask that the >> ADs take a >>> look at this >>> >>> approach closely. This is similar to the >> now-rejected approach >>> that was proposed >>> >>> in the l2vpn WG about munging CFM + PWs. To my >> reading, this >>> is essentially >>> >>> the same thing. If you want to run CFM, run it >> natively over >>> the ethernet interfaces and >>> >>> have no regard for the underlying topology (GMPLS, PWs, >>> etc...) otherwise you >>> >>> will be creating a mess for implementations and >>> interoperability. >>> >>> The application of the draft is exactly for what you >> are calling >>> out: when CFM is run natively over the Ethernet interfaces. The >>> document focuses on GELS and Ethernet LSPs. That is, to >> establish CFM >>> entities for GMPLS controlled Ethernet LSPs. Hence, I think >> there is >>> no layer violation issue. >>> >>> This solution specifically only works for GMPLS >>> ethernet LSPs, right? >>> >>> What do I do if I want to set up MPLS ethernet LSPs >> (i.e.: PWs) >>> and do CFM over those? Oh, >>> >>> that is a different solution, right? Then what do I do if I >>> want to run CFM over some new type of >>> >>> ethernet LSP in the future? More protocol hacks? The >> point is >>> to use CFM over an ethernet interface >>> >>> without the underlying layers knowing. This is good >> networking >>> architecture design, that simplifies >>> >>> implementations and makes them more robust, as well as makes >>> using them operationally much >>> >>> easier. >>> >>> 2) The introductory sections in this draft give a lot of >>> discussion about fast fault detection. I >>> >>> am puzzled by this given that GMPLS networks tend to run >>> over quickly self-healing >>> >>> optical infrastructures. Is it therefore truly >> necessary to >>> motivate this work by >>> >>> requiring fast CFMs? >>> >>> It is right that frequent CCMs are not required if >> the layers >>> below Ethernet handle protection. However, the ID focuses >> on Ethernet >>> LSPs where Ethernet is not just a single hop above a >> transport LSP. In >>> this case Ethernet layer (for clarity GELS) may provide >> protection for >>> Ethernet LSPs. In any case, the whole point of the ID is >> to allow for >>> the appropriate configuration of CFM for Ethernet LSPs with GMPLS. >>> >>> 3) This document does not cover E-LMI. Why not? >>> >>> E-LMI is run over the MEF UNI. The ID focuses on >> Ethernet LSPs >>> within a network. >>> >>> For the purposes of this document, we only >> discuss Ethernet >>> OAM >>> >>> [IEEE-CFM] aspects that are relevant for the >> connectivity >>> monitoring >>> >>> of bidirectional point-to-point PBB-TE connections. >>> >>> 4) Is this the right place to define this >> document or should >>> this be done in GELS? >>> >>> Well, GELS is done in CCAMP...this seems to be the right >>> place. >>> >>> 5) In section 2 you make the following statement: >>> >>> 2. GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions >>> >>> To simplify the configuration of connectivity >>> monitoring, when an >>> >>> Ethernet LSP is signalled the associated MEPs >> should be >>> automatically >>> >>> established. Further more, GMPLS signalling >> should be >>> able to >>> >>> enable/disable connectivity monitoring of a particular >>> Ethernet LSP. >>> >>> To my point in #1 above, you should use the native CFM >>> functionality over the ethernet interface and signal >>> >>> those capabilities to the bridges at both ends using the >>> IEEE CFM signaling procedures (when and if they >>> >>> are created). If you want to test the underlying GMPLS >>> LSP(s), then you should use some >>> >>> other mechanism defined for that layer such as the work >>> stated in draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt >>> >>> See the note to your point #1. There is no relation to the >>> gmpls-LSP-ping draft. >>> >>> The point I am making is that perhaps it should. >>> >>> --Tom >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Loa Andersson >> >> Principal Networking Architect >> Acreo AB phone: +46 8 632 77 14 >> Isafjordsgatan 22 mobile: +46 739 81 21 64 >> Kista, Sweden email: loa.andersson@acreo.se >> loa@pi.se >> >> This email was Anti Virus checked by Astaro Security Gateway. > http://www.astaro.com > > > -- Loa Andersson Principal Networking Architect Acreo AB phone: +46 8 632 77 14 Isafjordsgatan 22 mobile: +46 739 81 21 64 Kista, Sweden email: loa.andersson@acreo.se loa@pi.se This email was Anti Virus checked by Astaro Security Gateway. http://www.astaro.com Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 19:17:07 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 19:14:17 -0000 Message-ID: <2ECAA42C79676B42AEBAC11229CA7D0C018D2366@E03MVB2-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net> Thread-Topic: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Thread-Index: Acg3fqLx+kew6ly0RDmqpYbVOHGE5AAvR4Eg From: To: , Cc: , , , Loa, > With that it we should just go ahead and accept this as a > ccamp work item. If you are asking whether this should be adopted as a WG item then I am = in favour. regards, neil > -----Original Message----- > From: Loa Andersson [mailto:loa@pi.se]=20 > Sent: 05 December 2007 20:37 > To: Dan Li > Cc: Diego Caviglia; Harrison,N,Neil,DMN R; Attila Takacs;=20 > tnadeau@lucidvision.com; ccamp@ops.ietf.org > Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt >=20 >=20 > All, >=20 > I'm normally a bit careful with models "layer networks" that=20 > seems to be a rather cumbersome way of explaining the=20 > obvious; however in this case when it is used demonstrate=20 > that no layer violation is at hand I is inclined to accept=20 > that result. >=20 > I also agree with Dan that it seems to be a good idea to use=20 > RSVP-TE to provision OAM functionality is a good idea. >=20 > With that it we should just go ahead and accept this as a > ccamp work item. >=20 > /Loa >=20 > Dan Li wrote: > > MessageHi, > >=20 > > I think there is a misunderstanding with respect to the=20 > objective of=20 > > this draft. > >=20 > > As I read this draft, it describes how to extend the RSVP protocol >=20 > to support the configuration/enable the OAM function of Ethernet LSP, >=20 > which I think is a good thing to do, it is not saying to use signaling >=20 > protocol to do the OAM work. But anyway, it may be necessary=20 > to clarify >=20 > the objective at the beginning of this draft. > >=20 > > Regards, > >=20 > > Dan > >=20 > >=20 > > ----- Original Message -----=20 > > From: Diego Caviglia=20 > > To: neil.2.harrison@bt.com ; Attila Takacs ;=20 > tnadeau@lucidvision.com=20 > > Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org=20 > > Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 12:27 AM > > Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt > >=20 > >=20 > > Hi Neil, > >=20 > > Yes I totally agree with your analysis. > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > The is not going to redefine or reinvent the OAM that, as=20 > Thomas as=20 > > pointed out, is done by IEEE, the ID just specify how to=20 > use a control=20 > > plane mechanism (GMPLS) set-up at the same time data plane=20 > circuit and=20 > > the related OAM. > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > Frankly specking I don't see any layer violation here. > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > BR > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > Diego > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -------- > >=20 > > From: neil.2.harrison@bt.com [mailto:neil.2.harrison@bt.com]=20 > > Sent: marted=EC 4 dicembre 2007 22.55 > > To: Attila Takacs; tnadeau@lucidvision.com; Diego Caviglia > > Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org > > Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > I'm puzzled. I read the draft and thought it was=20 > excellent. It is addressing an important operational issue,=20 > ie a critical operational OAM requirement is to ensure that=20 > whatever mechanism (MP or CP) is used to set-up/tear-down a=20 > connection (so this only applies to co-cs or co-ps=20 > modes....the cl-ps mode does not have connections of course)=20 > is harmonised to the activation/deactivation of the=20 > OAM.....specifically a CV/CC flow. If we don't ensure this=20 > then there will be obvious operational problems. This is=20 > essentially what the draft is about. > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > Further, GMPLS is a generic OOB CP technique.....it is not a=20 > > specific layer network technology per se (but it is=20 > specific in it's=20 > > choice of signalling and routing components). So one can apply a=20 > > largely similar (GMPLS) CP technique to all co-cs mode technologies=20 > > (whether they are partitioning a space, freq or time resource - see=20 > > Note) and co-ps mode technologies (which only applies to=20 > partitioning=20 > > a time resource - see Note) on the assumption that the=20 > technology is=20 > > correctly architected in the DP for the mode considered. =20 > It's pretty=20 > > hard not to correctly architect the co-cs mode, but it's=20 > quite easy to=20 > > incorrectly architect the co-ps mode, eg one can't violate=20 > the rules=20 > > of a connection in the co-cs mode but one can in the co-ps mode. > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > Note - When we partition a time resource in regular=20 > time-slices we=20 > > create a co-cs mode layer network. When we partition a=20 > time resource=20 > > in irregular time-slices we create a co-ps mode layer=20 > network. More=20 > > information on labelling and resource partitioning can be=20 > found in the=20 > > work on unified modelling (of networks) in G.800. > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > regards, Neil > >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org=20 > [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Attila Takacs > > Sent: 05 December 2007 02:03 > > To: Thomas Nadeau; Diego Caviglia > > Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org > > Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt > >=20 > > Hi Tom, > >=20 > > please see inline. > >=20 > > Best regards, > >=20 > > Attila > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ---- > >=20 > > From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com]=20 > > Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 2:19 AM > > To: Diego Caviglia > > Cc: Attila Takacs; ccamp@ops.ietf.org;=20 > balazs.gero@ericsson.com > > Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > On Dec 4, 2007, at 7:33 PM, Diego Caviglia wrote: > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > > Hi Thomas, > >=20 > > My understanding of the ID was that=20 > RSVP-TE can=20 > > be used to 'piggyback' CFM set-up, otherwise the scenario=20 > is: usage of=20 > > RSVP-TE to set-up the LSP and NMS (meaning everything that is not=20 > > control plane) to enable to CFM for the LSP. > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > As I understand it, the IEEE is working on set-up of CFM (and=20 > > MEPs), as are some vendors I know. *) > >=20 > > This to me seems like the right way to do this. > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > IEEE specified CFM and MIBs to setup CFM. > >=20 > > Diego's summary is correct: one can use an NMS or a=20 > control plane=20 > > to setup the data plane. In this case we propose to use=20 > GMPLS to setup=20 > > the data plane: both forwarding + OAM. > >=20 > > From your comment I see that you're not happy with the fact=20 > > the ID is so technology specific am I right? > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > Precisely; its gluing CFM to RSVP-TE/GMPLS as a transport. > >=20 > > I do not see your point with gluing. What do you mean by "as=20 > > transport"? GMPLS is just controlling OAM, CFM is run solely in the=20 > > data plane. > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > If yes do you agree with the fact that could be useful in=20 > > general to use the same signaling 'session' to set-up the=20 > LSP and to=20 > > enable the CFM? > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > No, I do not agree. Again, if CFM is to be set-up=20 > e2e, let the=20 > > IEEE define this. Leave GMPLS to CCAMP. > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > Sorry, I cannot follow. > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > --Tom > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > > Best Regards > >=20 > >=20 > > Diego > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ---- > >=20 > > From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org=20 > [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Nadeau > > Sent: marted=EC 4 dicembre 2007 11.30 > > To: Attila Takacs > > Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com > > Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt > >=20 > > On Dec 4, 2007, at 1:51 PM, Attila Takacs wrote: > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > > Hi Thomas, > >=20 > > Thank you for the comments! > >=20 > > Please see answers inline. > >=20 > > Best regards, > > Attila > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > >=20 > > From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com]=20 > > Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 2:58 PM > > To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org > > Cc: Attila Takacs; balazs.gero@ericsson.com > > Subject: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt > >=20 > > After reading this draft, I have some questions/comments. > >=20 > > 1) Overall, I am concerned that the definition of a new TLV=20 > > and these procedures represent > >=20 > > what amounts to a laying violation and ask that the=20 > ADs take a=20 > > look at this > >=20 > > approach closely. This is similar to the=20 > now-rejected approach=20 > > that was proposed > >=20 > > in the l2vpn WG about munging CFM + PWs. To my=20 > reading, this=20 > > is essentially > >=20 > > the same thing. If you want to run CFM, run it=20 > natively over=20 > > the ethernet interfaces and > >=20 > > have no regard for the underlying topology (GMPLS, PWs,=20 > > etc...) otherwise you > >=20 > > will be creating a mess for implementations and=20 > > interoperability. > >=20 > > The application of the draft is exactly for what you=20 > are calling=20 > > out: when CFM is run natively over the Ethernet interfaces. The=20 > > document focuses on GELS and Ethernet LSPs. That is, to=20 > establish CFM=20 > > entities for GMPLS controlled Ethernet LSPs. Hence, I think=20 > there is=20 > > no layer violation issue. > >=20 > > This solution specifically only works for GMPLS=20 > > ethernet LSPs, right? > >=20 > > What do I do if I want to set up MPLS ethernet LSPs=20 > (i.e.: PWs)=20 > > and do CFM over those? Oh, > >=20 > > that is a different solution, right? Then what do I do if I=20 > > want to run CFM over some new type of > >=20 > > ethernet LSP in the future? More protocol hacks? The=20 > point is=20 > > to use CFM over an ethernet interface > >=20 > > without the underlying layers knowing. This is good=20 > networking=20 > > architecture design, that simplifies > >=20 > > implementations and makes them more robust, as well as makes=20 > > using them operationally much > >=20 > > easier. > >=20 > > 2) The introductory sections in this draft give a lot of=20 > > discussion about fast fault detection. I > >=20 > > am puzzled by this given that GMPLS networks tend to run=20 > > over quickly self-healing > >=20 > > optical infrastructures. Is it therefore truly=20 > necessary to=20 > > motivate this work by > >=20 > > requiring fast CFMs? > >=20 > > It is right that frequent CCMs are not required if=20 > the layers=20 > > below Ethernet handle protection. However, the ID focuses=20 > on Ethernet=20 > > LSPs where Ethernet is not just a single hop above a=20 > transport LSP. In=20 > > this case Ethernet layer (for clarity GELS) may provide=20 > protection for=20 > > Ethernet LSPs. In any case, the whole point of the ID is=20 > to allow for=20 > > the appropriate configuration of CFM for Ethernet LSPs with GMPLS. > >=20 > > 3) This document does not cover E-LMI. Why not? > >=20 > > E-LMI is run over the MEF UNI. The ID focuses on=20 > Ethernet LSPs=20 > > within a network. > >=20 > > For the purposes of this document, we only=20 > discuss Ethernet=20 > > OAM > >=20 > > [IEEE-CFM] aspects that are relevant for the=20 > connectivity=20 > > monitoring > >=20 > > of bidirectional point-to-point PBB-TE connections. > >=20 > > 4) Is this the right place to define this=20 > document or should=20 > > this be done in GELS? > >=20 > > Well, GELS is done in CCAMP...this seems to be the right=20 > > place. > >=20 > > 5) In section 2 you make the following statement: > >=20 > > 2. GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions > >=20 > > To simplify the configuration of connectivity=20 > > monitoring, when an > >=20 > > Ethernet LSP is signalled the associated MEPs=20 > should be=20 > > automatically > >=20 > > established. Further more, GMPLS signalling=20 > should be=20 > > able to > >=20 > > enable/disable connectivity monitoring of a particular=20 > > Ethernet LSP. > >=20 > > To my point in #1 above, you should use the native CFM=20 > > functionality over the ethernet interface and signal > >=20 > > those capabilities to the bridges at both ends using the=20 > > IEEE CFM signaling procedures (when and if they > >=20 > > are created). If you want to test the underlying GMPLS=20 > > LSP(s), then you should use some > >=20 > > other mechanism defined for that layer such as the work=20 > > stated in draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt > >=20 > > See the note to your point #1. There is no relation to the=20 > > gmpls-LSP-ping draft. > >=20 > > The point I am making is that perhaps it should. > >=20 > > --Tom > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 >=20 >=20 > --=20 > Loa Andersson >=20 > Principal Networking Architect > Acreo AB phone: +46 8 632 77 14 > Isafjordsgatan 22 mobile: +46 739 81 21 64 > Kista, Sweden email: loa.andersson@acreo.se > loa@pi.se >=20 > This email was Anti Virus checked by Astaro Security Gateway.=20 http://www.astaro.com Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 16:24:03 +0000 Message-ID: <47582192.2090801@psg.com> Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 17:21:38 +0100 From: dimitri papadimitriou Reply-To: dpapadimitriou@psg.com User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adrian Farrel CC: Loa Andersson , ccamp Subject: Re: GELS: what happened alternatively what will happen Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit adrian, all my suggestion is to focus the work on a step-wise basis we have a requirement doc. and an architecture doc. that can at this point in time be the main focus wrt workplan setup by the chairs (note there was no timeline associated when the email detailing the workplan was sent during summer time). they deserve to be commented and discussed on the list also (if that is still possible). in order to accelerate the process we might even propose certain deadlines/milestones for such commenting phases. concerning the strict protocol work, per Ethernet fwd'ing techno solution/spec is not the right approach imho. what we should do is work on the protocol mechanisms label distribution, resource reservation, source explicit routing, re-routing, etc. and the protocol elements label, tspecs, etc. This such that it becomes possible to articulate them wrt to the Ethernet fwd'ing technos and not define the Ethernet control elements on a per-techno basis. i am not saying this is necessarily possible for all Ethernet fwd'ing technos but it is the role of the former documents to determine how far we could progress with such approach. Reasons are: a) techno-specific elements have always been minimized in RFC 3945 arch. (technos do not impact the core GMPLS protocol arch. and processing, remember the early good days of an LSR associated to any kind of switching node) b) on a practical basis, does it make sense to have X GMPLS protocol specs (and so implementations) because there are X (foreseen) Ethernet fwd'ing techno that could fit ? c) how these different control elements are going to easily interoperate (wrt to the interoperability of the fwd'ing components) ? thanks, -d. Adrian Farrel wrote: > Hi Loa, > > Deborah and I want to move the Ethernet I-Ds forward (into the WG) as > quickly as possible, but we also need to organise our thoughts. > > Can you give us a couple of days to work out what we want to do with the > drafts, and in what order? > > In the mean time, a reminder to the whole WG that they should review and > comment on the list. Questions and issues are welcomed. Suggested text > is best. > > Thanks, > Adrian > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Loa Andersson" > To: "ccamp" > Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 2:28 AM > Subject: what happened alternatively what will happen > > >> Adrian and Deborah, >> >> yesterday a set of IDs on GMPLS control of Ethernet were presented; >> given that I remember correctly the author of the requirement draft >> said they think that the draft will be ready to become a working >> group document after next IETF meeting. >> >> The authors of the architecture draft for GMPLS controlled Ethernet >> and the protocol extensions for control of PBT-TE networks requested >> that their draft should be accepted as working group documents. >> >> No sense of the room were taken or "take it to the list" statement. >> >> What's the plan? >> >> /Loa >> -- >> Loa Andersson >> >> Principal Networking Architect >> Acreo AB phone: +46 8 632 77 14 >> Isafjordsgatan 22 mobile: +46 739 81 21 64 >> Kista, Sweden email: loa.andersson@acreo.se >> loa@pi.se >> >> This email was Anti Virus checked by Astaro Security Gateway. >> http://www.astaro.com >> >> >> > > > > > . > Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 15:00:26 +0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Message-ID; b=w6rrDV1px2URYMLwS6/SsFLQ2zwJ2njAeeg4CFjdI4701UXZcUeZCPY3HlSN7KEQsZwTygMNDBMiZ+U2GL5t8NWQV/jxfAcydXolYp1ZhZzsnABhnTBKUsFUquLXIHu3/QrSdzXdv3MgPQjPgjj24DCYT5IKh0s2/zgKVSNY0e8=; Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 06:58:03 -0800 (PST) From: Igor Bryskin Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt To: Attila Takacs , Wataru Imajuku Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-913381410-1196953083=:79554" Message-ID: <971230.79554.qm@web36805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --0-913381410-1196953083=:79554 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-2022-jp Hi Watatru, Although I understand, I think, your point - Enabling/disabling of alarm reporting and enabling/disabling of OAM for a given connection may seem similar in spirit - I agree with Attila and Adrian: the two functions are very distinct and we certainly don't want to overload the A-bit. Cheers, Igor ----- Original Message ---- From: Attila Takacs To: Wataru Imajuku Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Sent: Wednesday, December 5, 2007 10:07:37 PM Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Hi Wataru, Just adding to Adrian's points... I think it is useful to separate A and M bits. When the LSP is put in administratively down, e.g., to avoid it is carrying traffic for any reason, it would be still useful to run data plane OAM so one knows the data plane is in tact when the LSP is put back operational. That is, A=1, M=0. On the other hand, e.g., in the case of planed maintenance, one might want to turn data plane OAM off as well, having A=1, M=1. Regarding the I bit, I think even if GMPLS alarm communication is disabled, the actual monitoring of data plane connectivity is needed, again to have the up to date status of the data plane. In summary, I think having a separate M bit is useful, and accounts for flexibility. Best regards, Attila From: Wataru Imajuku [mailto:imajuku.wataru@lab.ntt.co.jp] Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 9:53 PM To: Attila Takacs Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Hi, Attila I understand this proposal automates manual configuration to set CFM interval in data plane. Control of CFM interval is new issue which GMPLS signaling mechanism has not covered. Although you outline Ethernet OAM functionality in section 2, I think it is better to describe what is difference and what is common in OAM functionality compared to circuit switched technologies which GMPLS has been covered. On the other hand, I could not understand why do you need M bit in Admin Status Object. Why do not use A=1 ? Is the objective of M bit to stop sending CCM temporally ? Best Regards Wataru At 04:37 07/12/06, Attila Takacs wrote: "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1 = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"> Hi all, Neil's and Dan's summary are exact. Thanks for your comments! Maybe the title of the ID caused the misunderstanding, it would say more if it would read: "GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions to *Control* Ethernet OAM". Nevertheless, when updating the ID we will clarify our point even more. Best regards, Attila From: Dan Li [mailto:danli@huawei.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 6:01 PM To: Diego Caviglia; neil.2.harrison@bt.com; Attila Takacs; tnadeau@lucidvision.com Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Hi, I think there is a misunderstanding with respect to the objective of this draft. As I read this draft, it describes how to extend the RSVP protocol to support the configuration/enable the OAM function of Ethernet LSP, which I think is a good thing to do, it is not saying to use signaling protocol to do the OAM work. But anyway, it may be necessary to clarify the objective at the beginning of this draft. Regards, Dan ----- Original Message ----- From: Diego Caviglia To: neil.2.harrison@bt.com ; Attila Takacs ; tnadeau@lucidvision.com Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 12:27 AM Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Hi Neil, Yes I totally agree with your analysis. The is not going to redefine or reinvent the OAM that, as Thomas as pointed out, is done by IEEE, the ID just specify how to use a control plane mechanism (GMPLS) set-up at the same time data plane circuit and the related OAM. Frankly specking I don$BCU(B see any layer violation here. BR Diego From: neil.2.harrison@bt.com [mailto:neil.2.harrison@bt.com] Sent: marted$B!&(B4 dicembre 2007 22.55 To: Attila Takacs; tnadeau@lucidvision.com; Diego Caviglia Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt I'm puzzled. I read the draft and thought it was excellent. It is addressing an important operational issue, ie a critical operational OAM requirement is to ensure that whatever mechanism (MP or CP) is used to set-up/tear-down a connection (so this only applies to co-cs or co-ps modes....the cl-ps mode does not have connections of course) is harmonised to the activation/deactivation of the OAM.....specifically a CV/CC flow. If we don't ensure this then there will be obvious operational problems. This is essentially what the draft is about. Further, GMPLS is a generic OOB CP technique.....it is not a specific layer network technology per se (but it is specific in it's choice of signalling and routing components). So one can apply a largely similar (GMPLS) CP technique to all co-cs mode technologies (whether they are partitioning a space, freq or time resource - see Note) and co-ps mode technologies (which only applies to partitioning a time resource - see Note) on the assumption that the technology is correctly architected in the DP for the mode considered. It's pretty hard not to correctly architect the co-cs mode, but it's quite easy to incorrectly architect the co-ps mode, eg one can't violate the rules of a connection in the co-cs mode but one can in the co-ps mode. Note - When we partition a time resource in regular time-slices we create a co-cs mode layer network. When we partition a time resource in irregular time-slices we create a co-ps mode layer network. More information on labelling and resource partitioning can be found in the work on unified modelling (of networks) in G.800. regards, Neil -----Original Message----- From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Attila Takacs Sent: 05 December 2007 02:03 To: Thomas Nadeau; Diego Caviglia Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Hi Tom, please see inline. Best regards, Attila From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 2:19 AM To: Diego Caviglia Cc: Attila Takacs; ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt On Dec 4, 2007, at 7:33 PM, Diego Caviglia wrote: Hi Thomas, My understanding of the ID was that RSVP-TE can be used to $BAQ(Biggyback$B!)(BCFM set-up, otherwise the scenario is: usage of RSVP-TE to set-up the LSP and NMS (meaning everything that is not control plane) to enable to CFM for the LSP. As I understand it, the IEEE is working on set-up of CFM (and MEPs), as are some vendors I know. *) This to me seems like the right way to do this. IEEE specified CFM and MIBs to setup CFM. Diego's summary is correct: one can use an NMS or a control plane to setup the data plane. In this case we propose to use GMPLS to setup the data plane: both forwarding + OAM. From your comment I see that you$BCS(Be not happy with the fact the ID is so technology specific am I right? Precisely; its gluing CFM to RSVP-TE/GMPLS as a transport. I do not see your point with gluing. What do you mean by "as transport"? GMPLS is just controlling OAM, CFM is run solely in the data plane. If yes do you agree with the fact that could be useful in general to use the same signaling $BAT(Bession$B!)(Bto set-up the LSP and to enable the CFM? No, I do not agree. Again, if CFM is to be set-up e2e, let the IEEE define this. Leave GMPLS to CCAMP. Sorry, I cannot follow. --Tom Best Regards Diego From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Nadeau Sent: marted$B!&(B4 dicembre 2007 11.30 To: Attila Takacs Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt On Dec 4, 2007, at 1:51 PM, Attila Takacs wrote: Hi Thomas, Thank you for the comments! Please see answers inline. Best regards, Attila From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 2:58 PM To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Cc: Attila Takacs; balazs.gero@ericsson.com Subject: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt After reading this draft, I have some questions/comments. 1) Overall, I am concerned that the definition of a new TLV and these procedures represent what amounts to a laying violation and ask that the ADs take a look at this approach closely. This is similar to the now-rejected approach that was proposed in the l2vpn WG about munging CFM + PWs. To my reading, this is essentially the same thing. If you want to run CFM, run it natively over the ethernet interfaces and have no regard for the underlying topology (GMPLS, PWs, etc...) otherwise you will be creating a mess for implementations and interoperability. The application of the draft is exactly for what you are calling out: when CFM is run natively over the Ethernet interfaces. The document focuses on GELS and Ethernet LSPs. That is, to establish CFM entities for GMPLS controlled Ethernet LSPs. Hence, I think there is no layer violation issue. This solution specifically only works for GMPLS ethernet LSPs, right? What do I do if I want to set up MPLS ethernet LSPs (i.e.: PWs) and do CFM over those? Oh, that is a different solution, right? Then what do I do if I want to run CFM over some new type of ethernet LSP in the future? More protocol hacks? The point is to use CFM over an ethernet interface without the underlying layers knowing. This is good networking architecture design, that simplifies implementations and makes them more robust, as well as makes using them operationally much easier. 2) The introductory sections in this draft give a lot of discussion about fast fault detection. I am puzzled by this given that GMPLS networks tend to run over quickly self-healing optical infrastructures. Is it therefore truly necessary to motivate this work by requiring fast CFMs? It is right that frequent CCMs are not required if the layers below Ethernet handle protection. However, the ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs where Ethernet is not just a single hop above a transport LSP. In this case Ethernet layer (for clarity GELS) may provide protection for Ethernet LSPs. In any case, the whole point of the ID is to allow for the appropriate configuration of CFM for Ethernet LSPs with GMPLS. 3) This document does not cover E-LMI. Why not? E-LMI is run over the MEF UNI. The ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs within a network. For the purposes of this document, we only discuss Ethernet OAM [IEEE-CFM] aspects that are relevant for the connectivity monitoring of bidirectional point-to-point PBB-TE connections. 4) Is this the right place to define this document or should this be done in GELS? Well, GELS is done in CCAMP...this seems to be the right place. 5) In section 2 you make the following statement: 2. GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions To simplify the configuration of connectivity monitoring, when an Ethernet LSP is signalled the associated MEPs should be automatically established. Further more, GMPLS signalling should be able to enable/disable connectivity monitoring of a particular Ethernet LSP. To my point in #1 above, you should use the native CFM functionality over the ethernet interface and signal those capabilities to the bridges at both ends using the IEEE CFM signaling procedures (when and if they are created). If you want to test the underlying GMPLS LSP(s), then you should use some other mechanism defined for that layer such as the work stated in draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt See the note to your point #1. There is no relation to the gmpls-LSP-ping draft. The point I am making is that perhaps it should. --Tom ------------------------------------- Wataru Imajuku, Ph.D.@NTT Network Innovation Labs TEL: +81-46-859-4315 FAX: +81-46-859-5541 ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping --0-913381410-1196953083=:79554 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-2022-jp
Hi Watatru,

Although I understand, I think, your point - Enabling/disabling  of alarm reporting and enabling/disabling of OAM for a given connection may seem similar in spirit - I agree with Attila and Adrian: the two  functions are very distinct and we certainly don't want to overload the A-bit.

Cheers,
Igor

----- Original Message ----
From: Attila Takacs <Attila.Takacs@ericsson.com>
To: Wataru Imajuku <imajuku.wataru@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, December 5, 2007 10:07:37 PM
Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

Hi Wataru,
 
Just adding to Adrian's points...
 
I think it is useful to separate A and M bits. When the LSP is put in administratively down, e.g.,  to avoid it is carrying traffic for any reason, it would be still useful to run data plane OAM so one knows the data plane is in tact when the LSP is put back operational. That is,  A=1, M=0. On the other hand, e.g., in the case of planed maintenance, one might want to turn data plane OAM off as well, having A=1, M=1.
 
Regarding the I bit, I think even if GMPLS alarm communication is disabled, the actual monitoring of data plane connectivity is needed, again to have the up to date status of the data plane.
 
In summary, I think having a separate M bit is useful, and accounts for flexibility.
 
Best regards,
Attila
 
 

From: Wataru Imajuku [mailto:imajuku.wataru@lab.ntt.co.jp]
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 9:53 PM
To: Attila Takacs
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

Hi, Attila

 I understand this proposal automates manual configuration to set CFM interval in data plane.
 Control of CFM interval is new issue which GMPLS signaling mechanism has not covered.
 Although you outline Ethernet OAM functionality in section 2, I think it is better to describe what is difference and what is common in OAM functionality compared to circuit switched technologies
which GMPLS has been covered.

 On the other hand, I could not understand why do you need M bit in Admin Status Object.
 Why do not use A=1 ?
 Is the objective of M bit to stop sending CCM temporally ?

Best Regards
Wataru

At 04:37 07/12/06, Attila Takacs wrote:
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1 = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags">
Hi all,
 
Neil's and Dan's summary are exact. Thanks for your comments!
 
Maybe the title of the ID caused the misunderstanding, it would say more if it would read: "GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions to *Control* Ethernet OAM".
Nevertheless, when updating the ID we will clarify our point even more.
 
Best regards,
Attila

From: Dan Li [mailto:danli@huawei.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 6:01 PM
To: Diego Caviglia; neil.2.harrison@bt.com; Attila Takacs; tnadeau@lucidvision.com
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

Hi,

 
I think there is a misunderstanding with respect to the objective of this draft.

 
As I read this draft, it describes how to extend the RSVP protocol to support the configuration/enable the OAM function of Ethernet LSP, which I think is a good thing to do, it is not saying to use signaling protocol to do the OAM work. But anyway, it may be necessary to clarify the objective at the beginning of this draft.

 
Regards,

 
Dan

 

 
----- Original Message -----
From: Diego Caviglia
To: neil.2.harrison@bt.com ; Attila Takacs ; tnadeau@lucidvision.com
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 12:27 AM
Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

Hi Neil,

           Yes I totally agree with your analysis.



 
The is not going to redefine or reinvent the OAM that, as Thomas as pointed out, is done by IEEE, the ID just specify how to use a control plane mechanism (GMPLS) set-up at the same time data plane circuit and the related OAM.



 
Frankly specking I don$BCU(B see any layer violation here.



 
BR



 
Diego
From: neil.2.harrison@bt.com [mailto:neil.2.harrison@bt.com]
Sent: marted$B!&(B4 dicembre 2007 22.55
To: Attila Takacs; tnadeau@lucidvision.com; Diego Caviglia
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt



 
I'm puzzled.  I read the draft and thought it was excellent.  It is addressing an important operational issue, ie a critical operational OAM requirement is to ensure that whatever mechanism (MP or CP) is used to set-up/tear-down a connection (so this only applies to co-cs or co-ps modes....the cl-ps mode does not have connections of course) is harmonised to the activation/deactivation of the OAM.....specifically a CV/CC flow.   If we don't ensure this then there will be obvious operational problems.  This is essentially what the draft is about.



 
Further, GMPLS is a generic OOB CP technique.....it is not a specific layer network technology per se (but it is specific in it's choice of signalling and routing components).  So one can apply a largely similar (GMPLS) CP technique to all co-cs mode technologies (whether they are partitioning a space, freq or time resource - see Note) and co-ps mode technologies (which only applies to partitioning a time resource - see Note) on the assumption that the technology is correctly architected in the DP for the mode considered.  It's pretty hard not to correctly architect the co-cs mode, but it's quite easy to incorrectly architect the co-ps mode, eg one can't violate the rules of a connection in the co-cs mode but one can in the co-ps mode.



 
Note - When we partition a time resource in regular time-slices we create a co-cs mode layer network.  When we partition a time resource in irregular time-slices we create a co-ps mode layer network.  More information on labelling and resource partitioning can be found in the work on unified modelling (of networks) in G.800.



 
regards, Neil

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Attila Takacs
Sent: 05 December 2007 02:03
To: Thomas Nadeau; Diego Caviglia
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

Hi Tom,

please see inline.

Best regards,

Attila
From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 2:19 AM
To: Diego Caviglia
Cc: Attila Takacs; ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com
Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt



 
On Dec 4, 2007, at 7:33 PM, Diego Caviglia wrote:
Hi Thomas,

                 My understanding of the ID was that RSVP-TE can be used to $BAQ(Biggyback$B!)(BCFM set-up, otherwise the scenario is: usage of RSVP-TE to set-up the LSP and NMS (meaning everything that is not control plane) to enable to CFM for the LSP.



 
As I understand it, the IEEE is working on set-up of CFM (and MEPs), as are some vendors I know. *)

This to me seems like the right way to do this.



 
IEEE specified CFM and MIBs to setup CFM.

Diego's summary is correct: one can use an NMS or a control plane to setup the data plane. In this case we propose to use GMPLS to setup the data plane: both forwarding + OAM.

From your comment I see that you$BCS(Be not happy with the fact the ID is so technology specific am I right? 

 

Precisely; its gluing CFM to RSVP-TE/GMPLS as a transport.

I do not see your point with gluing. What do you mean by "as transport"? GMPLS is just controlling OAM, CFM is run solely in the data plane.

 

 

If yes do you agree with the fact that could be useful in general to use the same signaling $BAT(Bession$B!)(Bto set-up the LSP and to enable the CFM?

 

No, I do not agree.  Again, if CFM is to be set-up e2e, let the IEEE define this. Leave GMPLS to CCAMP.

 

 

Sorry, I cannot follow.

 

 



 


 


 
--Tom



 




 
 Best Regards


Diego
From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Nadeau
Sent: marted$B!&(B4 dicembre 2007 11.30
To: Attila Takacs
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com
Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

On Dec 4, 2007, at 1:51 PM, Attila Takacs wrote:
Hi Thomas,

Thank you for the comments!

Please see answers inline.

Best regards,
Attila
From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 2:58 PM
To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Cc: Attila Takacs; balazs.gero@ericsson.com
Subject: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

After reading this draft, I have some questions/comments.

1) Overall, I am concerned that the definition of a new TLV and these procedures represent

what amounts to a laying violation and ask that the ADs take a look at this

approach closely. This is similar to the now-rejected approach that was proposed

in the l2vpn WG about munging CFM + PWs.  To my reading, this is essentially

the same thing. If you want to run CFM, run it natively over the ethernet interfaces and

have no regard for the underlying topology (GMPLS, PWs, etc...) otherwise you

will be creating a mess for implementations and interoperability.

The application of the draft is exactly for what you are calling out: when CFM is run natively over the Ethernet interfaces. The document focuses on GELS and Ethernet LSPs. That is, to establish CFM entities for GMPLS controlled Ethernet LSPs. Hence, I think there is no layer violation issue.

         This solution specifically only works for GMPLS ethernet LSPs, right? 

What do I do if I want to set up MPLS ethernet LSPs (i.e.: PWs) and do CFM over those? Oh,

that is a different solution, right?  Then what do I do if I want to run CFM over some new type of

ethernet LSP in the future? More protocol hacks?  The point is to use CFM over an ethernet interface

without the underlying layers knowing. This is good networking architecture design, that simplifies

implementations and makes them more robust, as well as makes using them operationally much

easier.

2) The introductory sections in this draft give a lot of discussion about fast fault detection. I

am puzzled by this given that GMPLS networks tend to run over quickly self-healing

optical infrastructures. Is it therefore truly necessary to motivate this work by

requiring fast CFMs?

It is right that frequent CCMs are not required if the layers below Ethernet handle protection. However, the ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs where Ethernet is not just a single hop above a transport LSP. In this case Ethernet layer (for clarity GELS) may provide protection for Ethernet LSPs. In any case,  the whole point of the ID is to allow for the appropriate configuration of CFM for Ethernet LSPs with GMPLS.

3) This document does not cover E-LMI. Why not?

E-LMI is run over the MEF UNI. The ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs within a network.

For the purposes of this document, we only discuss Ethernet OAM

   [IEEE-CFM] aspects that are relevant for the connectivity monitoring

   of bidirectional point-to-point PBB-TE connections. 

4) Is this the right place to define this document or should this be done in GELS?

Well, GELS is done in CCAMP...this seems to be the right place.

5)   In section 2 you make the following statement:

2.  GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions

    To simplify the configuration of connectivity monitoring, when an

   Ethernet LSP is signalled the associated MEPs should be automatically

    established.  Further more, GMPLS signalling should be able to

  enable/disable connectivity monitoring of a particular Ethernet LSP.

To my point in #1 above, you should use the native CFM functionality over the ethernet interface and signal

those capabilities to the bridges at both ends using the IEEE CFM signaling procedures (when and if they

are created).  If you want to test the underlying GMPLS LSP(s), then you should use some

other mechanism defined for that layer such as the work stated in draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt

See the note to your point #1. There is no relation to the gmpls-LSP-ping draft.

         The point I am making is that perhaps it should.

         --Tom

 

-------------------------------------
Wataru Imajuku, Ph.D.@NTT Network Innovation Labs
TEL: +81-46-859-4315
FAX: +81-46-859-5541



Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. --0-913381410-1196953083=:79554-- Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 10:35:46 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 11:33:56 +0100 Message-ID: <7DBAFEC6A76F3E42817DF1EBE64CB026051A31A9@ftrdmel2> Thread-Topic: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Thread-Index: Acg3jXZaSbMWwJMzR3OTicQlihNz0gAY+PTg From: "MEURIC Julien RD-CORE-LAN" To: "Thomas Nadeau" Cc: Hi Tom. Good question, but I guess this can already find some pieces of answers. = Quoting the BFD base draft: "For example, an OSPF implementation may = request a BFD session to be established to a neighbor discovered using = the OSPF Hello protocol." Personally, I believe it is useful to have a signaling mechanism to = configure OAM in a distributed environment. Considering a GMPLS context, = RSVP-TE is just there between end points. What is more, when = establishing an LSP, I am concerned with recovery aspects (already there = thanks to the Protection object) and obviously with the OAM allowing = this recovery to happen (and OAM is not implicit in case of = packet-switched connection). Regards, Julien -----Original Message----- From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On = Behalf Of Thomas Nadeau What do we do for the other signaling protocols outside of CCAMP? Do we now extend BGP, RSVP-TE (for MPLS), and LDP to control OAM there as well? --Tom =09 > All, > > I'm normally a bit careful with models "layer networks" that seems > to be a rather cumbersome way of explaining the obvious; however > in this case when it is used demonstrate that no layer violation > is at hand I is inclined to accept that result. > > I also agree with Dan that it seems to be a good idea to use > RSVP-TE to provision OAM functionality is a good idea. > > With that it we should just go ahead and accept this as a > ccamp work item. > > /Loa > > Dan Li wrote: >> MessageHi, >> >> I think there is a misunderstanding with respect to the objective =20 >> of this draft. >> >> As I read this draft, it describes how to extend the RSVP protocol > > to support the configuration/enable the OAM function of Ethernet LSP, > > which I think is a good thing to do, it is not saying to use signaling > > protocol to do the OAM work. But anyway, it may be necessary to =20 > clarify > > the objective at the beginning of this draft. >> >> Regards, >> >> Dan >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Diego Caviglia >> To: neil.2.harrison@bt.com ; Attila Takacs ; tnadeau@lucidvision.com >> Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org >> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 12:27 AM >> Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt >> >> >> Hi Neil, >> >> Yes I totally agree with your analysis. >> >> >> >> The is not going to redefine or reinvent the OAM that, as Thomas =20 >> as pointed out, is done by IEEE, the ID just specify how to use a =20 >> control plane mechanism (GMPLS) set-up at the same time data plane =20 >> circuit and the related OAM. >> >> >> >> Frankly specking I don't see any layer violation here. >> >> >> >> BR >> >> >> >> Diego >> >> >> >> >> = -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- >> >> From: neil.2.harrison@bt.com [mailto:neil.2.harrison@bt.com] >> Sent: marted=EC 4 dicembre 2007 22.55 >> To: Attila Takacs; tnadeau@lucidvision.com; Diego Caviglia >> Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org >> Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt >> >> >> >> I'm puzzled. I read the draft and thought it was excellent. It =20 >> is addressing an important operational issue, ie a critical =20 >> operational OAM requirement is to ensure that whatever mechanism =20 >> (MP or CP) is used to set-up/tear-down a connection (so this only =20 >> applies to co-cs or co-ps modes....the cl-ps mode does not have =20 >> connections of course) is harmonised to the activation/deactivation =20 >> of the OAM.....specifically a CV/CC flow. If we don't ensure this =20 >> then there will be obvious operational problems. This is =20 >> essentially what the draft is about. >> >> >> >> Further, GMPLS is a generic OOB CP technique.....it is not a =20 >> specific layer network technology per se (but it is specific in =20 >> it's choice of signalling and routing components). So one can =20 >> apply a largely similar (GMPLS) CP technique to all co-cs mode =20 >> technologies (whether they are partitioning a space, freq or time =20 >> resource - see Note) and co-ps mode technologies (which only =20 >> applies to partitioning a time resource - see Note) on the =20 >> assumption that the technology is correctly architected in the DP =20 >> for the mode considered. It's pretty hard not to correctly =20 >> architect the co-cs mode, but it's quite easy to incorrectly =20 >> architect the co-ps mode, eg one can't violate the rules of a =20 >> connection in the co-cs mode but one can in the co-ps mode. >> >> >> >> Note - When we partition a time resource in regular time-slices we =20 >> create a co-cs mode layer network. When we partition a time =20 >> resource in irregular time-slices we create a co-ps mode layer =20 >> network. More information on labelling and resource partitioning =20 >> can be found in the work on unified modelling (of networks) in G.800. >> >> >> >> regards, Neil >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] =20 >> On Behalf Of Attila Takacs >> Sent: 05 December 2007 02:03 >> To: Thomas Nadeau; Diego Caviglia >> Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org >> Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt >> >> Hi Tom, >> >> please see inline. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Attila >> >> >> >> >> = -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - >> >> From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 2:19 AM >> To: Diego Caviglia >> Cc: Attila Takacs; ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com >> Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt >> >> >> >> On Dec 4, 2007, at 7:33 PM, Diego Caviglia wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi Thomas, >> >> My understanding of the ID was that RSVP-TE =20 >> can be used to 'piggyback' CFM set-up, otherwise the scenario is: =20 >> usage of RSVP-TE to set-up the LSP and NMS (meaning everything that =20 >> is not control plane) to enable to CFM for the LSP. >> >> >> >> As I understand it, the IEEE is working on set-up of CFM (and =20 >> MEPs), as are some vendors I know. *) >> >> This to me seems like the right way to do this. >> >> >> >> IEEE specified CFM and MIBs to setup CFM. >> >> Diego's summary is correct: one can use an NMS or a control =20 >> plane to setup the data plane. In this case we propose to use GMPLS =20 >> to setup the data plane: both forwarding + OAM. >> >> From your comment I see that you're not happy with the fact =20 >> the ID is so technology specific am I right? >> >> >> >> Precisely; its gluing CFM to RSVP-TE/GMPLS as a transport. >> >> I do not see your point with gluing. What do you mean by "as =20 >> transport"? GMPLS is just controlling OAM, CFM is run solely in the =20 >> data plane. >> >> >> >> >> >> If yes do you agree with the fact that could be useful in =20 >> general to use the same signaling 'session' to set-up the LSP and =20 >> to enable the CFM? >> >> >> >> No, I do not agree. Again, if CFM is to be set-up e2e, let =20 >> the IEEE define this. Leave GMPLS to CCAMP. >> >> >> >> >> >> Sorry, I cannot follow. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> --Tom >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Best Regards >> >> >> Diego >> >> >> = -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - >> >> From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-=20 >> ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Nadeau >> Sent: marted=EC 4 dicembre 2007 11.30 >> To: Attila Takacs >> Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com >> Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt >> >> On Dec 4, 2007, at 1:51 PM, Attila Takacs wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi Thomas, >> >> Thank you for the comments! >> >> Please see answers inline. >> >> Best regards, >> Attila >> >> >> = ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 2:58 PM >> To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org >> Cc: Attila Takacs; balazs.gero@ericsson.com >> Subject: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt >> >> After reading this draft, I have some questions/comments. >> >> 1) Overall, I am concerned that the definition of a new TLV =20 >> and these procedures represent >> >> what amounts to a laying violation and ask that the ADs take =20 >> a look at this >> >> approach closely. This is similar to the now-rejected =20 >> approach that was proposed >> >> in the l2vpn WG about munging CFM + PWs. To my reading, =20 >> this is essentially >> >> the same thing. If you want to run CFM, run it natively over =20 >> the ethernet interfaces and >> >> have no regard for the underlying topology (GMPLS, PWs, =20 >> etc...) otherwise you >> >> will be creating a mess for implementations and =20 >> interoperability. >> >> The application of the draft is exactly for what you are =20 >> calling out: when CFM is run natively over the Ethernet interfaces. =20 >> The document focuses on GELS and Ethernet LSPs. That is, to =20 >> establish CFM entities for GMPLS controlled Ethernet LSPs. Hence, I =20 >> think there is no layer violation issue. >> >> This solution specifically only works for GMPLS =20 >> ethernet LSPs, right? >> >> What do I do if I want to set up MPLS ethernet LSPs (i.e.: =20 >> PWs) and do CFM over those? Oh, >> >> that is a different solution, right? Then what do I do if I =20 >> want to run CFM over some new type of >> >> ethernet LSP in the future? More protocol hacks? The point is =20 >> to use CFM over an ethernet interface >> >> without the underlying layers knowing. This is good networking =20 >> architecture design, that simplifies >> >> implementations and makes them more robust, as well as makes =20 >> using them operationally much >> >> easier. >> >> 2) The introductory sections in this draft give a lot of =20 >> discussion about fast fault detection. I >> >> am puzzled by this given that GMPLS networks tend to run =20 >> over quickly self-healing >> >> optical infrastructures. Is it therefore truly necessary =20 >> to motivate this work by >> >> requiring fast CFMs? >> >> It is right that frequent CCMs are not required if the =20 >> layers below Ethernet handle protection. However, the ID focuses on =20 >> Ethernet LSPs where Ethernet is not just a single hop above a =20 >> transport LSP. In this case Ethernet layer (for clarity GELS) may =20 >> provide protection for Ethernet LSPs. In any case, the whole point =20 >> of the ID is to allow for the appropriate configuration of CFM for =20 >> Ethernet LSPs with GMPLS. >> >> 3) This document does not cover E-LMI. Why not? >> >> E-LMI is run over the MEF UNI. The ID focuses on Ethernet =20 >> LSPs within a network. >> >> For the purposes of this document, we only discuss =20 >> Ethernet OAM >> >> [IEEE-CFM] aspects that are relevant for the =20 >> connectivity monitoring >> >> of bidirectional point-to-point PBB-TE connections. >> >> 4) Is this the right place to define this document or =20 >> should this be done in GELS? >> >> Well, GELS is done in CCAMP...this seems to be the right =20 >> place. >> >> 5) In section 2 you make the following statement: >> >> 2. GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions >> >> To simplify the configuration of connectivity =20 >> monitoring, when an >> >> Ethernet LSP is signalled the associated MEPs should be =20 >> automatically >> >> established. Further more, GMPLS signalling should be =20 >> able to >> >> enable/disable connectivity monitoring of a particular =20 >> Ethernet LSP. >> >> To my point in #1 above, you should use the native CFM =20 >> functionality over the ethernet interface and signal >> >> those capabilities to the bridges at both ends using the =20 >> IEEE CFM signaling procedures (when and if they >> >> are created). If you want to test the underlying GMPLS =20 >> LSP(s), then you should use some >> >> other mechanism defined for that layer such as the work =20 >> stated in draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt >> >> See the note to your point #1. There is no relation to the =20 >> gmpls-LSP-ping draft. >> >> The point I am making is that perhaps it should. >> >> --Tom >> >> >> > > > --=20 > Loa Andersson > > Principal Networking Architect > Acreo AB phone: +46 8 632 77 14 > Isafjordsgatan 22 mobile: +46 739 81 21 64 > Kista, Sweden email: loa.andersson@acreo.se > loa@pi.se > > This email was Anti Virus checked by Astaro Security Gateway. = http://www.astaro.com > > Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 09:58:43 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 09:55:04 -0000 Message-ID: <2ECAA42C79676B42AEBAC11229CA7D0C018813BC@E03MVB2-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net> Thread-Topic: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Thread-Index: Acg3i+1GEuVpw1alT4uzeK4Jfb5eVQAUoEtA From: To: , Cc: , , , Hi Tom, You asked 05 December 2007 22:12 > What do we do for the other signaling protocols outside > of CCAMP? Do we now extend BGP, RSVP-TE (for MPLS), and LDP=20 > to control OAM there as well? >=20 > --Tom The principle I gave stands....this behaviour is required irrespective = of what mechanism (CP signalling or MP provisioning) is responsible for = setting-up/tearing-down a *connection*. This is not a new requirement. = I've mentioned this requirement several times in posts to various WGs = over the years and you will find this requirement mentioned in Y.1711. = We also stated this as a requirement in the now expired draft = 'draft-willis-pwe3-requirements-00.txt (which can still be found at = http://www2.tools.ietf.org/html/draft-willis-pwe3-requirements-00) when = attempting to provide guidance to PWE3 on OAM requirements back in 2004. = In section 1.2 therein we gave some background wrt to the different OAM = required for the 3 network modes of cl-ps, co-ps and co-cs (as the OAM = required is not the same in all 3 cases)....here is the relevant extract = wrt to the activation/deactivation topic of this thread: ".....the OAM activation/deactivation must be harmonized with the = set-up/tear-down of the path. Failure to harmonize OAM = activation/deactivation with PW set-up/tear-down will lead to either: - lack of OAM protection when the PW is set-up, or false alarms when the PW is torn-down; or - OAM being activated prior to PW set-up and significant problems due to operator error." You'll note I highlighted the word *connection* above....this is rather = important. One can't activate/deactivate OAM in concert with connection = set-up/tear-down if one does not have a connection, eg cl-ps mode. = There are also no problems when dealing with the co-cs mode as this is = forced to respect the requirements of a connection (which, to summarise = are: (i) single source (ii) no re-ordering of traffic units). However, = the LDP form of MPLS does not respect the requirements of a connection = as it creates a mp2p merging construct.....PHP has a similar merging = behaviour on the last hop on an LSP. So the activation/deactivation of = OAM in concert with such constructs has no meaning.....indeed, one can't = even say we have a proper layer network here, and this is not simply due = to violating the rules of a connection but results from the fact that an = MPLS traffic unit does not provide consistent characteristic = information, eg the label field can take on at least 4 different = semantics (and this list is still growing, eg fat PWs). If not obvious = what the problem is here, if traffic gets misdirected then the receiving = node could misinterpret the meaning of the label. =20 So, we can't apply the requirement MPLS LDP/PHP networks.....these can = only use 'on-demand' OAM mechanisms.....just the nature of the beast.=20 However, when we have a co-cs or co-ps mode network that does respect = the requirements of a connection then it makes a huge amount of = operational sense to make sure one activates/deactivates the OAM in = conjunction with the connection set-up/tear-down. And this is not simply a matter of 'good housekeeping' for the service = provider, including things like the ability to provide a = protection-switching capability, there is a security issue = here......which is especially germane in the case of a co-ps mode = technology based on label-swapping. That is, if one has a defect that = causes misdirected traffic it is important to be able to proactively = detect such a case and take appropriate action, eg squelch the traffic, = in order to protect the integrity of the affected client traffic. This issue is not a problem for networks that have network unique and = non-swapped labelling, ie all cl-ps mode technologies and PBB-TE in the = co-ps mode, ie these network are inherently robust to misconnectivity = defects without any OAM at all (since each traffic unit essentially = carries it own CV function due to presence of the SA). However, in the = case of PBB-TE we still require the OAM activation/deactivation in = concert with the connection set-up/tear-down as we need to distinguish = the cases of 'quiescent client traffic' from 'simple break'. Moreover, = as I already noted, we also need the OAM for protection-switching = requirements. regards, Neil=20 >=20 > =09 > > All, > > > > I'm normally a bit careful with models "layer networks" > that seems to > > be a rather cumbersome way of explaining the obvious; > however in this > > case when it is used demonstrate that no layer violation is > at hand I > > is inclined to accept that result. > > > > I also agree with Dan that it seems to be a good idea to > use RSVP-TE > > to provision OAM functionality is a good idea. > > > > With that it we should just go ahead and accept this as a > ccamp work > > item. > > > > /Loa > > > > Dan Li wrote: > >> MessageHi, > >> > >> I think there is a misunderstanding with respect to the objective=20 > >> of this draft. > >> > >> As I read this draft, it describes how to extend the RSVP protocol > > > > to support the configuration/enable the OAM function of > Ethernet LSP, > > > > which I think is a good thing to do, it is not saying to > use signaling > > > > protocol to do the OAM work. But anyway, it may be necessary to=20 > > clarify > > > > the objective at the beginning of this draft. > >> > >> Regards, > >> > >> Dan > >> > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: Diego Caviglia > >> To: neil.2.harrison@bt.com ; Attila Takacs ; > tnadeau@lucidvision.com > >> Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org > >> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 12:27 AM > >> Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt > >> > >> > >> Hi Neil, > >> > >> Yes I totally agree with your analysis. > >> > >> > >> > >> The is not going to redefine or reinvent the OAM that, as Thomas=20 > >> as pointed out, is done by IEEE, the ID just specify how to use a > >> control plane mechanism (GMPLS) set-up at the same time=20 > data plane > >> circuit and the related OAM. > >> > >> > >> > >> Frankly specking I don't see any layer violation here. > >> > >> > >> > >> BR > >> > >> > >> > >> Diego > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>=20 > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> --------- > >> > >> From: neil.2.harrison@bt.com [mailto:neil.2.harrison@bt.com] > >> Sent: marted=EC 4 dicembre 2007 22.55 > >> To: Attila Takacs; tnadeau@lucidvision.com; Diego Caviglia > >> Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org > >> Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt > >> > >> > >> > >> I'm puzzled. I read the draft and thought it was excellent. It=20 > >> is addressing an important operational issue, ie a critical > >> operational OAM requirement is to ensure that whatever mechanism =20 > >> (MP or CP) is used to set-up/tear-down a connection (so this only =20 > >> applies to co-cs or co-ps modes....the cl-ps mode does not have =20 > >> connections of course) is harmonised to the=20 > activation/deactivation > >> of the OAM.....specifically a CV/CC flow. If we don't=20 > ensure this > >> then there will be obvious operational problems. This is > >> essentially what the draft is about. > >> > >> > >> > >> Further, GMPLS is a generic OOB CP technique.....it is not a=20 > >> specific layer network technology per se (but it is specific in > >> it's choice of signalling and routing components). So one can =20 > >> apply a largely similar (GMPLS) CP technique to all co-cs mode =20 > >> technologies (whether they are partitioning a space, freq or time =20 > >> resource - see Note) and co-ps mode technologies (which only =20 > >> applies to partitioning a time resource - see Note) on the =20 > >> assumption that the technology is correctly architected in the DP =20 > >> for the mode considered. It's pretty hard not to correctly =20 > >> architect the co-cs mode, but it's quite easy to incorrectly =20 > >> architect the co-ps mode, eg one can't violate the rules of a =20 > >> connection in the co-cs mode but one can in the co-ps mode. > >> > >> > >> > >> Note - When we partition a time resource in regular time-slices we = > >> create a co-cs mode layer network. When we partition a time > >> resource in irregular time-slices we create a co-ps mode layer =20 > >> network. More information on labelling and resource partitioning =20 > >> can be found in the work on unified modelling (of=20 > networks) in G.800. > >> > >> > >> > >> regards, Neil > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] = > >> On Behalf Of Attila Takacs > >> Sent: 05 December 2007 02:03 > >> To: Thomas Nadeau; Diego Caviglia > >> Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org > >> Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt > >> > >> Hi Tom, > >> > >> please see inline. > >> > >> Best regards, > >> > >> Attila > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>=20 > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> ----- > >> > >> From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com] > >> Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 2:19 AM > >> To: Diego Caviglia > >> Cc: Attila Takacs; ccamp@ops.ietf.org; > balazs.gero@ericsson.com > >> Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt > >> > >> > >> > >> On Dec 4, 2007, at 7:33 PM, Diego Caviglia wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Hi Thomas, > >> > >> My understanding of the ID was that RSVP-TE=20 > >> can be used to 'piggyback' CFM set-up, otherwise the scenario is: > >> usage of RSVP-TE to set-up the LSP and NMS (meaning=20 > everything that > >> is not control plane) to enable to CFM for the LSP. > >> > >> > >> > >> As I understand it, the IEEE is working on set-up of CFM (and=20 > >> MEPs), as are some vendors I know. *) > >> > >> This to me seems like the right way to do this. > >> > >> > >> > >> IEEE specified CFM and MIBs to setup CFM. > >> > >> Diego's summary is correct: one can use an NMS or a control=20 > >> plane to setup the data plane. In this case we propose to > use GMPLS > >> to setup the data plane: both forwarding + OAM. > >> > >> From your comment I see that you're not happy with the fact=20 > >> the ID is so technology specific am I right? > >> > >> > >> > >> Precisely; its gluing CFM to RSVP-TE/GMPLS as a transport. > >> > >> I do not see your point with gluing. What do you mean by "as=20 > >> transport"? GMPLS is just controlling OAM, CFM is run > solely in the > >> data plane. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> If yes do you agree with the fact that could be useful in=20 > >> general to use the same signaling 'session' to set-up the LSP and > >> to enable the CFM? > >> > >> > >> > >> No, I do not agree. Again, if CFM is to be set-up e2e, let=20 > >> the IEEE define this. Leave GMPLS to CCAMP. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Sorry, I cannot follow. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> --Tom > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Best Regards > >> > >> > >> Diego > >> > >> > >>=20 > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> ----- > >> > >> From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-=20 > >> ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Nadeau > >> Sent: marted=EC 4 dicembre 2007 11.30 > >> To: Attila Takacs > >> Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com > >> Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt > >> > >> On Dec 4, 2007, at 1:51 PM, Attila Takacs wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Hi Thomas, > >> > >> Thank you for the comments! > >> > >> Please see answers inline. > >> > >> Best regards, > >> Attila > >> > >> > >>=20 > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> --- > >> > >> From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com] > >> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 2:58 PM > >> To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org > >> Cc: Attila Takacs; balazs.gero@ericsson.com > >> Subject: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt > >> > >> After reading this draft, I have some questions/comments. > >> > >> 1) Overall, I am concerned that the definition of a new TLV=20 > >> and these procedures represent > >> > >> what amounts to a laying violation and ask that the ADs take = > >> a look at this > >> > >> approach closely. This is similar to the now-rejected=20 > >> approach that was proposed > >> > >> in the l2vpn WG about munging CFM + PWs. To my reading,=20 > >> this is essentially > >> > >> the same thing. If you want to run CFM, run it natively over = > >> the ethernet interfaces and > >> > >> have no regard for the underlying topology (GMPLS, PWs, > >> etc...) otherwise you > >> > >> will be creating a mess for implementations and=20 > >> interoperability. > >> > >> The application of the draft is exactly for what you are=20 > >> calling out: when CFM is run natively over the Ethernet > interfaces. > >> The document focuses on GELS and Ethernet LSPs. That is, to > >> establish CFM entities for GMPLS controlled Ethernet LSPs.=20 > Hence, I > >> think there is no layer violation issue. > >> > >> This solution specifically only works for GMPLS=20 > >> ethernet LSPs, right? > >> > >> What do I do if I want to set up MPLS ethernet LSPs (i.e.: > >> PWs) and do CFM over those? Oh, > >> > >> that is a different solution, right? Then what do I do if I=20 > >> want to run CFM over some new type of > >> > >> ethernet LSP in the future? More protocol hacks? The point is = > >> to use CFM over an ethernet interface > >> > >> without the underlying layers knowing. This is good networking = > >> architecture design, that simplifies > >> > >> implementations and makes them more robust, as well as makes=20 > >> using them operationally much > >> > >> easier. > >> > >> 2) The introductory sections in this draft give a lot of=20 > >> discussion about fast fault detection. I > >> > >> am puzzled by this given that GMPLS networks tend to run=20 > >> over quickly self-healing > >> > >> optical infrastructures. Is it therefore truly necessary=20 > >> to motivate this work by > >> > >> requiring fast CFMs? > >> > >> It is right that frequent CCMs are not required if the=20 > >> layers below Ethernet handle protection. However, the ID > focuses on > >> Ethernet LSPs where Ethernet is not just a single hop above a > >> transport LSP. In this case Ethernet layer (for clarity GELS) may =20 > >> provide protection for Ethernet LSPs. In any case, the=20 > whole point > >> of the ID is to allow for the appropriate configuration of > CFM for > >> Ethernet LSPs with GMPLS. > >> > >> 3) This document does not cover E-LMI. Why not? > >> > >> E-LMI is run over the MEF UNI. The ID focuses on Ethernet=20 > >> LSPs within a network. > >> > >> For the purposes of this document, we only discuss=20 > >> Ethernet OAM > >> > >> [IEEE-CFM] aspects that are relevant for the=20 > >> connectivity monitoring > >> > >> of bidirectional point-to-point PBB-TE connections. > >> > >> 4) Is this the right place to define this document or=20 > >> should this be done in GELS? > >> > >> Well, GELS is done in CCAMP...this seems to be the right=20 > >> place. > >> > >> 5) In section 2 you make the following statement: > >> > >> 2. GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions > >> > >> To simplify the configuration of connectivity=20 > >> monitoring, when an > >> > >> Ethernet LSP is signalled the associated MEPs should be = > >> automatically > >> > >> established. Further more, GMPLS signalling should be = > >> able to > >> > >> enable/disable connectivity monitoring of a particular=20 > >> Ethernet LSP. > >> > >> To my point in #1 above, you should use the native CFM=20 > >> functionality over the ethernet interface and signal > >> > >> those capabilities to the bridges at both ends using the=20 > >> IEEE CFM signaling procedures (when and if they > >> > >> are created). If you want to test the underlying GMPLS=20 > >> LSP(s), then you should use some > >> > >> other mechanism defined for that layer such as the work=20 > >> stated in draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt > >> > >> See the note to your point #1. There is no relation to the=20 > >> gmpls-LSP-ping draft. > >> > >> The point I am making is that perhaps it should. > >> > >> --Tom > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > Loa Andersson > > > > Principal Networking Architect > > Acreo AB phone: +46 8 632 77 14 > > Isafjordsgatan 22 mobile: +46 739 81 21 64 > > Kista, Sweden email: loa.andersson@acreo.se > > loa@pi.se > > > > This email was Anti Virus checked by Astaro Security Gateway. > > http://www.astaro.com > > > > >=20 >=20 Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 09:46:43 +0000 Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 09:43:28 +0000 From: Adrian Farrel Subject: GELS: what happened alternatively what will happen To: Loa Andersson , ccamp Reply-to: Adrian Farrel Message-id: <02dd01c837ec$79172a70$bd148182@your029b8cecfe> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1; reply-type=original Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Hi Loa, Deborah and I want to move the Ethernet I-Ds forward (into the WG) as quickly as possible, but we also need to organise our thoughts. Can you give us a couple of days to work out what we want to do with the drafts, and in what order? In the mean time, a reminder to the whole WG that they should review and comment on the list. Questions and issues are welcomed. Suggested text is best. Thanks, Adrian ----- Original Message ----- From: "Loa Andersson" To: "ccamp" Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 2:28 AM Subject: what happened alternatively what will happen > Adrian and Deborah, > > yesterday a set of IDs on GMPLS control of Ethernet were presented; > given that I remember correctly the author of the requirement draft > said they think that the draft will be ready to become a working > group document after next IETF meeting. > > The authors of the architecture draft for GMPLS controlled Ethernet > and the protocol extensions for control of PBT-TE networks requested > that their draft should be accepted as working group documents. > > No sense of the room were taken or "take it to the list" statement. > > What's the plan? > > /Loa > -- > Loa Andersson > > Principal Networking Architect > Acreo AB phone: +46 8 632 77 14 > Isafjordsgatan 22 mobile: +46 739 81 21 64 > Kista, Sweden email: loa.andersson@acreo.se > loa@pi.se > > This email was Anti Virus checked by Astaro Security Gateway. > http://www.astaro.com > > > Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 03:08:33 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C837B5.27F0AC40" Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 04:07:37 +0100 Message-ID: <53CCFDD6E346CB43994852666C210E9102624612@esealmw116.eemea.ericsson.se> Thread-Topic: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Thread-Index: Acg3gDEwHgzwuP1RQpW2V7jAqvE8ogAKqyMg From: "Attila Takacs" To: "Wataru Imajuku" Cc: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C837B5.27F0AC40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-2022-JP" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Wataru, Just adding to Adrian's points... I think it is useful to separate A and M bits. When the LSP is put in administratively down, e.g., to avoid it is carrying traffic for any reason, it would be still useful to run data plane OAM so one knows the data plane is in tact when the LSP is put back operational. That is, A=1, M=0. On the other hand, e.g., in the case of planed maintenance, one might want to turn data plane OAM off as well, having A=1, M=1. Regarding the I bit, I think even if GMPLS alarm communication is disabled, the actual monitoring of data plane connectivity is needed, again to have the up to date status of the data plane. In summary, I think having a separate M bit is useful, and accounts for flexibility. Best regards, Attila ________________________________ From: Wataru Imajuku [mailto:imajuku.wataru@lab.ntt.co.jp] Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 9:53 PM To: Attila Takacs Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Hi, Attila I understand this proposal automates manual configuration to set CFM interval in data plane. Control of CFM interval is new issue which GMPLS signaling mechanism has not covered. Although you outline Ethernet OAM functionality in section 2, I think it is better to describe what is difference and what is common in OAM functionality compared to circuit switched technologies which GMPLS has been covered. On the other hand, I could not understand why do you need M bit in Admin Status Object. Why do not use A=1 ? Is the objective of M bit to stop sending CCM temporally ? Best Regards Wataru At 04:37 07/12/06, Attila Takacs wrote: "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1 = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"> Hi all, Neil's and Dan's summary are exact. Thanks for your comments! Maybe the title of the ID caused the misunderstanding, it would say more if it would read: "GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions to *Control* Ethernet OAM". Nevertheless, when updating the ID we will clarify our point even more. Best regards, Attila ________________________________ From: Dan Li [mailto:danli@huawei.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 6:01 PM To: Diego Caviglia; neil.2.harrison@bt.com; Attila Takacs; tnadeau@lucidvision.com Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Hi, I think there is a misunderstanding with respect to the objective of this draft. As I read this draft, it describes how to extend the RSVP protocol to support the configuration/enable the OAM function of Ethernet LSP, which I think is a good thing to do, it is not saying to use signaling protocol to do the OAM work. But anyway, it may be necessary to clarify the objective at the beginning of this draft. Regards, Dan ----- Original Message ----- From: Diego Caviglia To: neil.2.harrison@bt.com ; Attila Takacs ; tnadeau@lucidvision.com Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 12:27 AM Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Hi Neil, Yes I totally agree with your analysis. The is not going to redefine or reinvent the OAM that, as Thomas as pointed out, is done by IEEE, the ID just specify how to use a control plane mechanism (GMPLS) set-up at the same time data plane circuit and the related OAM. Frankly specking I don$BCU(J see any layer violation here. BR Diego ________________________________ From: neil.2.harrison@bt.com [mailto:neil.2.harrison@bt.com] Sent: marted$B!&(J4 dicembre 2007 22.55 To: Attila Takacs; tnadeau@lucidvision.com; Diego Caviglia Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt I'm puzzled. I read the draft and thought it was excellent. It is addressing an important operational issue, ie a critical operational OAM requirement is to ensure that whatever mechanism (MP or CP) is used to set-up/tear-down a connection (so this only applies to co-cs or co-ps modes....the cl-ps mode does not have connections of course) is harmonised to the activation/deactivation of the OAM.....specifically a CV/CC flow. If we don't ensure this then there will be obvious operational problems. This is essentially what the draft is about. Further, GMPLS is a generic OOB CP technique.....it is not a specific layer network technology per se (but it is specific in it's choice of signalling and routing components). So one can apply a largely similar (GMPLS) CP technique to all co-cs mode technologies (whether they are partitioning a space, freq or time resource - see Note) and co-ps mode technologies (which only applies to partitioning a time resource - see Note) on the assumption that the technology is correctly architected in the DP for the mode considered. It's pretty hard not to correctly architect the co-cs mode, but it's quite easy to incorrectly architect the co-ps mode, eg one can't violate the rules of a connection in the co-cs mode but one can in the co-ps mode. Note - When we partition a time resource in regular time-slices we create a co-cs mode layer network. When we partition a time resource in irregular time-slices we create a co-ps mode layer network. More information on labelling and resource partitioning can be found in the work on unified modelling (of networks) in G.800. regards, Neil -----Original Message----- From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Attila Takacs Sent: 05 December 2007 02:03 To: Thomas Nadeau; Diego Caviglia Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Hi Tom, please see inline. Best regards, Attila ________________________________ From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 2:19 AM To: Diego Caviglia Cc: Attila Takacs; ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt On Dec 4, 2007, at 7:33 PM, Diego Caviglia wrote: Hi Thomas, My understanding of the ID was that RSVP-TE can be used to $BAQ(Jiggyback$B!)(JCFM set-up, otherwise the scenario is: usage of RSVP-TE to set-up the LSP and NMS (meaning everything that is not control plane) to enable to CFM for the LSP. As I understand it, the IEEE is working on set-up of CFM (and MEPs), as are some vendors I know. *) This to me seems like the right way to do this. IEEE specified CFM and MIBs to setup CFM. Diego's summary is correct: one can use an NMS or a control plane to setup the data plane. In this case we propose to use GMPLS to setup the data plane: both forwarding + OAM. From your comment I see that you$BCS(Je not happy with the fact the ID is so technology specific am I right? Precisely; its gluing CFM to RSVP-TE/GMPLS as a transport. I do not see your point with gluing. What do you mean by "as transport"? GMPLS is just controlling OAM, CFM is run solely in the data plane. If yes do you agree with the fact that could be useful in general to use the same signaling $BAT(Jession$B!)(Jto set-up the LSP and to enable the CFM? No, I do not agree. Again, if CFM is to be set-up e2e, let the IEEE define this. Leave GMPLS to CCAMP. Sorry, I cannot follow. --Tom Best Regards Diego ________________________________ From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Nadeau Sent: marted$B!&(J4 dicembre 2007 11.30 To: Attila Takacs Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt On Dec 4, 2007, at 1:51 PM, Attila Takacs wrote: Hi Thomas, Thank you for the comments! Please see answers inline. Best regards, Attila ________________________________ From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 2:58 PM To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Cc: Attila Takacs; balazs.gero@ericsson.com Subject: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt After reading this draft, I have some questions/comments. 1) Overall, I am concerned that the definition of a new TLV and these procedures represent what amounts to a laying violation and ask that the ADs take a look at this approach closely. This is similar to the now-rejected approach that was proposed in the l2vpn WG about munging CFM + PWs. To my reading, this is essentially the same thing. If you want to run CFM, run it natively over the ethernet interfaces and have no regard for the underlying topology (GMPLS, PWs, etc...) otherwise you will be creating a mess for implementations and interoperability. The application of the draft is exactly for what you are calling out: when CFM is run natively over the Ethernet interfaces. The document focuses on GELS and Ethernet LSPs. That is, to establish CFM entities for GMPLS controlled Ethernet LSPs. Hence, I think there is no layer violation issue. This solution specifically only works for GMPLS ethernet LSPs, right? What do I do if I want to set up MPLS ethernet LSPs (i.e.: PWs) and do CFM over those? Oh, that is a different solution, right? Then what do I do if I want to run CFM over some new type of ethernet LSP in the future? More protocol hacks? The point is to use CFM over an ethernet interface without the underlying layers knowing. This is good networking architecture design, that simplifies implementations and makes them more robust, as well as makes using them operationally much easier. 2) The introductory sections in this draft give a lot of discussion about fast fault detection. I am puzzled by this given that GMPLS networks tend to run over quickly self-healing optical infrastructures. Is it therefore truly necessary to motivate this work by requiring fast CFMs? It is right that frequent CCMs are not required if the layers below Ethernet handle protection. However, the ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs where Ethernet is not just a single hop above a transport LSP. In this case Ethernet layer (for clarity GELS) may provide protection for Ethernet LSPs. In any case, the whole point of the ID is to allow for the appropriate configuration of CFM for Ethernet LSPs with GMPLS. 3) This document does not cover E-LMI. Why not? E-LMI is run over the MEF UNI. The ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs within a network. For the purposes of this document, we only discuss Ethernet OAM [IEEE-CFM] aspects that are relevant for the connectivity monitoring of bidirectional point-to-point PBB-TE connections. 4) Is this the right place to define this document or should this be done in GELS? Well, GELS is done in CCAMP...this seems to be the right place. 5) In section 2 you make the following statement: 2. GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions To simplify the configuration of connectivity monitoring, when an Ethernet LSP is signalled the associated MEPs should be automatically established. Further more, GMPLS signalling should be able to enable/disable connectivity monitoring of a particular Ethernet LSP. To my point in #1 above, you should use the native CFM functionality over the ethernet interface and signal those capabilities to the bridges at both ends using the IEEE CFM signaling procedures (when and if they are created). If you want to test the underlying GMPLS LSP(s), then you should use some other mechanism defined for that layer such as the work stated in draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt See the note to your point #1. There is no relation to the gmpls-LSP-ping draft. The point I am making is that perhaps it should. --Tom ------------------------------------- Wataru Imajuku, Ph.D.@NTT Network Innovation Labs TEL: +81-46-859-4315 FAX: +81-46-859-5541 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C837B5.27F0AC40 Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-2022-JP" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hi Wataru,
 
Just adding to Adrian's points...
 
I think it is useful to separate A and M bits. When the LSP is put in administratively down, e.g.,  to avoid it is carrying traffic for any reason, it would be still useful to run data plane OAM so one knows the data plane is in tact when the LSP is put back operational. That is,  A=1, M=0. On the other hand, e.g., in the case of planed maintenance, one might want to turn data plane OAM off as well, having A=1, M=1.
 
Regarding the I bit, I think even if GMPLS alarm communication is disabled, the actual monitoring of data plane connectivity is needed, again to have the up to date status of the data plane.
 
In summary, I think having a separate M bit is useful, and accounts for flexibility.
 
Best regards,
Attila
 
 

From: Wataru Imajuku [mailto:imajuku.wataru@lab.ntt.co.jp]
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 9:53 PM
To: Attila Takacs
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

Hi, Attila

 I understand this proposal automates manual configuration to set CFM interval in data plane.
 Control of CFM interval is new issue which GMPLS signaling mechanism has not covered.
 Although you outline Ethernet OAM functionality in section 2, I think it is better to describe what is difference and what is common in OAM functionality compared to circuit switched technologies
which GMPLS has been covered.

 On the other hand, I could not understand why do you need M bit in Admin Status Object.
 Why do not use A=1 ?
 Is the objective of M bit to stop sending CCM temporally ?

Best Regards
Wataru

At 04:37 07/12/06, Attila Takacs wrote:
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1 = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags">
Hi all,
 
Neil's and Dan's summary are exact. Thanks for your comments!
 
Maybe the title of the ID caused the misunderstanding, it would say more if it would read: "GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions to *Control* Ethernet OAM".
Nevertheless, when updating the ID we will clarify our point even more.
 
Best regards,
Attila

From: Dan Li [mailto:danli@huawei.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 6:01 PM
To: Diego Caviglia; neil.2.harrison@bt.com; Attila Takacs; tnadeau@lucidvision.com
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

Hi,

 
I think there is a misunderstanding with respect to the objective of this draft.

 
As I read this draft, it describes how to extend the RSVP protocol to support the configuration/enable the OAM function of Ethernet LSP, which I think is a good thing to do, it is not saying to use signaling protocol to do the OAM work. But anyway, it may be necessary to clarify the objective at the beginning of this draft.

 
Regards,

 
Dan

 

 
----- Original Message -----
From: Diego Caviglia
To: neil.2.harrison@bt.com ; Attila Takacs ; tnadeau@lucidvision.com
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 12:27 AM
Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

Hi Neil,

           Yes I totally agree with your analysis.



 
The is not going to redefine or reinvent the OAM that, as Thomas as pointed out, is done by IEEE, the ID just specify how to use a control plane mechanism (GMPLS) set-up at the same time data plane circuit and the related OAM.



 
Frankly specking I don$BCU(B see any layer violation here.



 
BR



 
Diego


From: neil.2.harrison@bt.com [mailto:neil.2.harrison@bt.com]
Sent: marted$B!&(B4 dicembre 2007 22.55
To: Attila Takacs; tnadeau@lucidvision.com; Diego Caviglia
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt



 
I'm puzzled.  I read the draft and thought it was excellent.  It is addressing an important operational issue, ie a critical operational OAM requirement is to ensure that whatever mechanism (MP or CP) is used to set-up/tear-down a connection (so this only applies to co-cs or co-ps modes....the cl-ps mode does not have connections of course) is harmonised to the activation/deactivation of the OAM.....specifically a CV/CC flow.   If we don't ensure this then there will be obvious operational problems.  This is essentially what the draft is about.



 
Further, GMPLS is a generic OOB CP technique.....it is not a specific layer network technology per se (but it is specific in it's choice of signalling and routing components).  So one can apply a largely similar (GMPLS) CP technique to all co-cs mode technologies (whether they are partitioning a space, freq or time resource - see Note) and co-ps mode technologies (which only applies to partitioning a time resource - see Note) on the assumption that the technology is correctly architected in the DP for the mode considered.  It's pretty hard not to correctly architect the co-cs mode, but it's quite easy to incorrectly architect the co-ps mode, eg one can't violate the rules of a connection in the co-cs mode but one can in the co-ps mode.



 
Note - When we partition a time resource in regular time-slices we create a co-cs mode layer network.  When we partition a time resource in irregular time-slices we create a co-ps mode layer network.  More information on labelling and resource partitioning can be found in the work on unified modelling (of networks) in G.800.



 
regards, Neil

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Attila Takacs
Sent: 05 December 2007 02:03
To: Thomas Nadeau; Diego Caviglia
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

Hi Tom,

please see inline.

Best regards,

Attila


From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 2:19 AM
To: Diego Caviglia
Cc: Attila Takacs; ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com
Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt



 
On Dec 4, 2007, at 7:33 PM, Diego Caviglia wrote:
Hi Thomas,

                 My understanding of the ID was that RSVP-TE can be used to $BAQ(Biggyback$B!)(BCFM set-up, otherwise the scenario is: usage of RSVP-TE to set-up the LSP and NMS (meaning everything that is not control plane) to enable to CFM for the LSP.



 
As I understand it, the IEEE is working on set-up of CFM (and MEPs), as are some vendors I know. *)

This to me seems like the right way to do this.



 
IEEE specified CFM and MIBs to setup CFM.

Diego's summary is correct: one can use an NMS or a control plane to setup the data plane. In this case we propose to use GMPLS to setup the data plane: both forwarding + OAM.

From your comment I see that you$BCS(Be not happy with the fact the ID is so technology specific am I right? 

 

Precisely; its gluing CFM to RSVP-TE/GMPLS as a transport.

I do not see your point with gluing. What do you mean by "as transport"? GMPLS is just controlling OAM, CFM is run solely in the data plane.

 

 

If yes do you agree with the fact that could be useful in general to use the same signaling $BAT(Bession$B!)(Bto set-up the LSP and to enable the CFM?

 

No, I do not agree.  Again, if CFM is to be set-up e2e, let the IEEE define this. Leave GMPLS to CCAMP.

 

 

Sorry, I cannot follow.

 

 



 


 


 
--Tom



 




 
 Best Regards


Diego
From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Nadeau
Sent: marted$B!&(B4 dicembre 2007 11.30
To: Attila Takacs
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com
Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

On Dec 4, 2007, at 1:51 PM, Attila Takacs wrote:
Hi Thomas,

Thank you for the comments!

Please see answers inline.

Best regards,
Attila
From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 2:58 PM
To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Cc: Attila Takacs; balazs.gero@ericsson.com
Subject: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

After reading this draft, I have some questions/comments.

1) Overall, I am concerned that the definition of a new TLV and these procedures represent

what amounts to a laying violation and ask that the ADs take a look at this

approach closely. This is similar to the now-rejected approach that was proposed

in the l2vpn WG about munging CFM + PWs.  To my reading, this is essentially

the same thing. If you want to run CFM, run it natively over the ethernet interfaces and

have no regard for the underlying topology (GMPLS, PWs, etc...) otherwise you

will be creating a mess for implementations and interoperability.

The application of the draft is exactly for what you are calling out: when CFM is run natively over the Ethernet interfaces. The document focuses on GELS and Ethernet LSPs. That is, to establish CFM entities for GMPLS controlled Ethernet LSPs. Hence, I think there is no layer violation issue.

         This solution specifically only works for GMPLS ethernet LSPs, right? 

What do I do if I want to set up MPLS ethernet LSPs (i.e.: PWs) and do CFM over those? Oh,

that is a different solution, right?  Then what do I do if I want to run CFM over some new type of

ethernet LSP in the future? More protocol hacks?  The point is to use CFM over an ethernet interface

without the underlying layers knowing. This is good networking architecture design, that simplifies

implementations and makes them more robust, as well as makes using them operationally much

easier.

2) The introductory sections in this draft give a lot of discussion about fast fault detection. I

am puzzled by this given that GMPLS networks tend to run over quickly self-healing

optical infrastructures. Is it therefore truly necessary to motivate this work by

requiring fast CFMs?

It is right that frequent CCMs are not required if the layers below Ethernet handle protection. However, the ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs where Ethernet is not just a single hop above a transport LSP. In this case Ethernet layer (for clarity GELS) may provide protection for Ethernet LSPs. In any case,  the whole point of the ID is to allow for the appropriate configuration of CFM for Ethernet LSPs with GMPLS.

3) This document does not cover E-LMI. Why not?

E-LMI is run over the MEF UNI. The ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs within a network.

For the purposes of this document, we only discuss Ethernet OAM

   [IEEE-CFM] aspects that are relevant for the connectivity monitoring

   of bidirectional point-to-point PBB-TE connections. 

4) Is this the right place to define this document or should this be done in GELS?

Well, GELS is done in CCAMP...this seems to be the right place.

5)   In section 2 you make the following statement:

2.  GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions

    To simplify the configuration of connectivity monitoring, when an

   Ethernet LSP is signalled the associated MEPs should be automatically

    established.  Further more, GMPLS signalling should be able to

  enable/disable connectivity monitoring of a particular Ethernet LSP.

To my point in #1 above, you should use the native CFM functionality over the ethernet interface and signal

those capabilities to the bridges at both ends using the IEEE CFM signaling procedures (when and if they

are created).  If you want to test the underlying GMPLS LSP(s), then you should use some

other mechanism defined for that layer such as the work stated in draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt

See the note to your point #1. There is no relation to the gmpls-LSP-ping draft.

         The point I am making is that perhaps it should.

         --Tom

 

-------------------------------------
Wataru Imajuku, Ph.D.@NTT Network Innovation Labs
TEL: +81-46-859-4315
FAX: +81-46-859-5541

------_=_NextPart_001_01C837B5.27F0AC40-- Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 02:31:09 +0000 Message-ID: <47575E4A.1040500@pi.se> Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 03:28:26 +0100 From: Loa Andersson Organization: Acreo AB User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ccamp Subject: what happened alternatively what will happen Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Adrian and Deborah, yesterday a set of IDs on GMPLS control of Ethernet were presented; given that I remember correctly the author of the requirement draft said they think that the draft will be ready to become a working group document after next IETF meeting. The authors of the architecture draft for GMPLS controlled Ethernet and the protocol extensions for control of PBT-TE networks requested that their draft should be accepted as working group documents. No sense of the room were taken or "take it to the list" statement. What's the plan? /Loa -- Loa Andersson Principal Networking Architect Acreo AB phone: +46 8 632 77 14 Isafjordsgatan 22 mobile: +46 739 81 21 64 Kista, Sweden email: loa.andersson@acreo.se loa@pi.se This email was Anti Virus checked by Astaro Security Gateway. http://www.astaro.com Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 22:14:07 +0000 Cc: Dan Li , Diego Caviglia , neil.2.harrison@bt.com, Attila Takacs , ccamp@ops.ietf.org Message-Id: <74C2EEA4-898C-43A0-AB54-CAD9C53E59BE@lucidvision.com> From: Thomas Nadeau To: Loa Andersson Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 17:12:20 -0500 What do we do for the other signaling protocols outside of = CCAMP? Do we now extend BGP, RSVP-TE (for MPLS), and LDP to control OAM there as well? --Tom =09 > All, > > I'm normally a bit careful with models "layer networks" that seems > to be a rather cumbersome way of explaining the obvious; however > in this case when it is used demonstrate that no layer violation > is at hand I is inclined to accept that result. > > I also agree with Dan that it seems to be a good idea to use > RSVP-TE to provision OAM functionality is a good idea. > > With that it we should just go ahead and accept this as a > ccamp work item. > > /Loa > > Dan Li wrote: >> MessageHi, >> >> I think there is a misunderstanding with respect to the objective =20 >> of this draft. >> >> As I read this draft, it describes how to extend the RSVP protocol > > to support the configuration/enable the OAM function of Ethernet LSP, > > which I think is a good thing to do, it is not saying to use signaling > > protocol to do the OAM work. But anyway, it may be necessary to =20 > clarify > > the objective at the beginning of this draft. >> >> Regards, >> >> Dan >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Diego Caviglia >> To: neil.2.harrison@bt.com ; Attila Takacs ; tnadeau@lucidvision.com >> Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org >> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 12:27 AM >> Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt >> >> >> Hi Neil, >> >> Yes I totally agree with your analysis. >> >> >> >> The is not going to redefine or reinvent the OAM that, as Thomas =20 >> as pointed out, is done by IEEE, the ID just specify how to use a =20 >> control plane mechanism (GMPLS) set-up at the same time data plane =20= >> circuit and the related OAM. >> >> >> >> Frankly specking I don't see any layer violation here. >> >> >> >> BR >> >> >> >> Diego >> >> >> >> >> = --------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---- >> >> From: neil.2.harrison@bt.com [mailto:neil.2.harrison@bt.com] >> Sent: marted=EC 4 dicembre 2007 22.55 >> To: Attila Takacs; tnadeau@lucidvision.com; Diego Caviglia >> Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org >> Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt >> >> >> >> I'm puzzled. I read the draft and thought it was excellent. It =20 >> is addressing an important operational issue, ie a critical =20 >> operational OAM requirement is to ensure that whatever mechanism =20 >> (MP or CP) is used to set-up/tear-down a connection (so this only =20 >> applies to co-cs or co-ps modes....the cl-ps mode does not have =20 >> connections of course) is harmonised to the activation/deactivation =20= >> of the OAM.....specifically a CV/CC flow. If we don't ensure this =20= >> then there will be obvious operational problems. This is =20 >> essentially what the draft is about. >> >> >> >> Further, GMPLS is a generic OOB CP technique.....it is not a =20 >> specific layer network technology per se (but it is specific in =20 >> it's choice of signalling and routing components). So one can =20 >> apply a largely similar (GMPLS) CP technique to all co-cs mode =20 >> technologies (whether they are partitioning a space, freq or time =20 >> resource - see Note) and co-ps mode technologies (which only =20 >> applies to partitioning a time resource - see Note) on the =20 >> assumption that the technology is correctly architected in the DP =20 >> for the mode considered. It's pretty hard not to correctly =20 >> architect the co-cs mode, but it's quite easy to incorrectly =20 >> architect the co-ps mode, eg one can't violate the rules of a =20 >> connection in the co-cs mode but one can in the co-ps mode. >> >> >> >> Note - When we partition a time resource in regular time-slices we =20= >> create a co-cs mode layer network. When we partition a time =20 >> resource in irregular time-slices we create a co-ps mode layer =20 >> network. More information on labelling and resource partitioning =20 >> can be found in the work on unified modelling (of networks) in G.800. >> >> >> >> regards, Neil >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] =20= >> On Behalf Of Attila Takacs >> Sent: 05 December 2007 02:03 >> To: Thomas Nadeau; Diego Caviglia >> Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org >> Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt >> >> Hi Tom, >> >> please see inline. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Attila >> >> >> >> >> = --------------------------------------------------------------------------= >> >> From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 2:19 AM >> To: Diego Caviglia >> Cc: Attila Takacs; ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com >> Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt >> >> >> >> On Dec 4, 2007, at 7:33 PM, Diego Caviglia wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi Thomas, >> >> My understanding of the ID was that RSVP-TE =20 >> can be used to 'piggyback' CFM set-up, otherwise the scenario is: =20 >> usage of RSVP-TE to set-up the LSP and NMS (meaning everything that =20= >> is not control plane) to enable to CFM for the LSP. >> >> >> >> As I understand it, the IEEE is working on set-up of CFM (and =20= >> MEPs), as are some vendors I know. *) >> >> This to me seems like the right way to do this. >> >> >> >> IEEE specified CFM and MIBs to setup CFM. >> >> Diego's summary is correct: one can use an NMS or a control =20 >> plane to setup the data plane. In this case we propose to use GMPLS =20= >> to setup the data plane: both forwarding + OAM. >> >> =46rom your comment I see that you're not happy with the fact =20= >> the ID is so technology specific am I right? >> >> >> >> Precisely; its gluing CFM to RSVP-TE/GMPLS as a transport. >> >> I do not see your point with gluing. What do you mean by "as =20 >> transport"? GMPLS is just controlling OAM, CFM is run solely in the =20= >> data plane. >> >> >> >> >> >> If yes do you agree with the fact that could be useful in =20 >> general to use the same signaling 'session' to set-up the LSP and =20 >> to enable the CFM? >> >> >> >> No, I do not agree. Again, if CFM is to be set-up e2e, let =20 >> the IEEE define this. Leave GMPLS to CCAMP. >> >> >> >> >> >> Sorry, I cannot follow. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> --Tom >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Best Regards >> >> >> Diego >> >> >> = --------------------------------------------------------------------------= >> >> From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-=20 >> ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Nadeau >> Sent: marted=EC 4 dicembre 2007 11.30 >> To: Attila Takacs >> Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com >> Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt >> >> On Dec 4, 2007, at 1:51 PM, Attila Takacs wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi Thomas, >> >> Thank you for the comments! >> >> Please see answers inline. >> >> Best regards, >> Attila >> >> >> = ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 2:58 PM >> To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org >> Cc: Attila Takacs; balazs.gero@ericsson.com >> Subject: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt >> >> After reading this draft, I have some questions/comments. >> >> 1) Overall, I am concerned that the definition of a new TLV =20= >> and these procedures represent >> >> what amounts to a laying violation and ask that the ADs take =20= >> a look at this >> >> approach closely. This is similar to the now-rejected =20 >> approach that was proposed >> >> in the l2vpn WG about munging CFM + PWs. To my reading, =20 >> this is essentially >> >> the same thing. If you want to run CFM, run it natively over =20= >> the ethernet interfaces and >> >> have no regard for the underlying topology (GMPLS, PWs, =20 >> etc...) otherwise you >> >> will be creating a mess for implementations and =20 >> interoperability. >> >> The application of the draft is exactly for what you are =20 >> calling out: when CFM is run natively over the Ethernet interfaces. =20= >> The document focuses on GELS and Ethernet LSPs. That is, to =20 >> establish CFM entities for GMPLS controlled Ethernet LSPs. Hence, I =20= >> think there is no layer violation issue. >> >> This solution specifically only works for GMPLS =20 >> ethernet LSPs, right? >> >> What do I do if I want to set up MPLS ethernet LSPs (i.e.: =20 >> PWs) and do CFM over those? Oh, >> >> that is a different solution, right? Then what do I do if I =20 >> want to run CFM over some new type of >> >> ethernet LSP in the future? More protocol hacks? The point is =20= >> to use CFM over an ethernet interface >> >> without the underlying layers knowing. This is good networking =20= >> architecture design, that simplifies >> >> implementations and makes them more robust, as well as makes =20 >> using them operationally much >> >> easier. >> >> 2) The introductory sections in this draft give a lot of =20 >> discussion about fast fault detection. I >> >> am puzzled by this given that GMPLS networks tend to run =20 >> over quickly self-healing >> >> optical infrastructures. Is it therefore truly necessary =20 >> to motivate this work by >> >> requiring fast CFMs? >> >> It is right that frequent CCMs are not required if the =20 >> layers below Ethernet handle protection. However, the ID focuses on =20= >> Ethernet LSPs where Ethernet is not just a single hop above a =20 >> transport LSP. In this case Ethernet layer (for clarity GELS) may =20 >> provide protection for Ethernet LSPs. In any case, the whole point =20= >> of the ID is to allow for the appropriate configuration of CFM for =20= >> Ethernet LSPs with GMPLS. >> >> 3) This document does not cover E-LMI. Why not? >> >> E-LMI is run over the MEF UNI. The ID focuses on Ethernet =20 >> LSPs within a network. >> >> For the purposes of this document, we only discuss =20 >> Ethernet OAM >> >> [IEEE-CFM] aspects that are relevant for the =20 >> connectivity monitoring >> >> of bidirectional point-to-point PBB-TE connections. >> >> 4) Is this the right place to define this document or =20 >> should this be done in GELS? >> >> Well, GELS is done in CCAMP...this seems to be the right =20 >> place. >> >> 5) In section 2 you make the following statement: >> >> 2. GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions >> >> To simplify the configuration of connectivity =20 >> monitoring, when an >> >> Ethernet LSP is signalled the associated MEPs should be =20= >> automatically >> >> established. Further more, GMPLS signalling should be =20= >> able to >> >> enable/disable connectivity monitoring of a particular =20 >> Ethernet LSP. >> >> To my point in #1 above, you should use the native CFM =20 >> functionality over the ethernet interface and signal >> >> those capabilities to the bridges at both ends using the =20 >> IEEE CFM signaling procedures (when and if they >> >> are created). If you want to test the underlying GMPLS =20 >> LSP(s), then you should use some >> >> other mechanism defined for that layer such as the work =20 >> stated in draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt >> >> See the note to your point #1. There is no relation to the =20 >> gmpls-LSP-ping draft. >> >> The point I am making is that perhaps it should. >> >> --Tom >> >> >> > > > --=20 > Loa Andersson > > Principal Networking Architect > Acreo AB phone: +46 8 632 77 14 > Isafjordsgatan 22 mobile: +46 739 81 21 64 > Kista, Sweden email: loa.andersson@acreo.se > loa@pi.se > > This email was Anti Virus checked by Astaro Security Gateway. = http://www.astaro.com > > Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 21:29:24 +0000 Message-ID: <01fe01c83785$bf17df90$bd148182@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "Attila Takacs" , "Wataru Imajuku" Cc: Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 21:28:09 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-2022-jp"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Wataru, > On the other hand, I could not understand why do you need M bit in Admin > Status Object. > Why do not use A=1 ? > Is the objective of M bit to stop sending CCM temporally ? The A bit is already defined as: When set, indicates that the local actions related to the "administratively down" state should be taken. The I bit is additionally defined as: When set, indicates that alarm communication is disabled for the LSP and that nodes SHOULD NOT add local alarm information. Neither of these is the same as the proposed M bit When this bit is set the connectivity monitoring of the LSP is disabled. So, yes, the proposal is that the M bit adds new function to turn off OAM processing on an LSP reqgardless of the administrative status of the LSP. Whether that is a useful function is up for discussion. Adrian Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 20:49:31 +0000 Message-Id: <6.0.0.20.2.20071206053200.06f7d8b0@mailsv4.y.ecl.ntt.co.jp> Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 05:52:45 +0900 To: "Attila Takacs" From: Wataru Imajuku Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Cc: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-2022-JP" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, Attila

 I understand this proposal automates manual configuration to set CFM interval in data plane.
 Control of CFM interval is new issue which GMPLS signaling mechanism has not covered.
 Although you outline Ethernet OAM functionality in section 2, I think it is better to describe what is difference and what is common in OAM functionality compared to circuit switched technologies
which GMPLS has been covered.

 On the other hand, I could not understand why do you need M bit in Admin Status Object.
 Why do not use A=1 ?
 Is the objective of M bit to stop sending CCM temporally ?

Best Regards
Wataru

At 04:37 07/12/06, Attila Takacs wrote:
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1 = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags">
Hi all,
 
Neil's and Dan's summary are exact. Thanks for your comments!
 
Maybe the title of the ID caused the misunderstanding, it would say more if it would read: "GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions to *Control* Ethernet OAM".
Nevertheless, when updating the ID we will clarify our point even more.
 
Best regards,
Attila

From: Dan Li [mailto:danli@huawei.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 6:01 PM
To: Diego Caviglia; neil.2.harrison@bt.com; Attila Takacs; tnadeau@lucidvision.com
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

Hi,
 
I think there is a misunderstanding with respect to the objective of this draft.
 
As I read this draft, it describes how to extend the RSVP protocol to support the configuration/enable the OAM function of Ethernet LSP, which I think is a good thing to do, it is not saying to use signaling protocol to do the OAM work. But anyway, it may be necessary to clarify the objective at the beginning of this draft.
 
Regards,
 
Dan
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Diego Caviglia
To: neil.2.harrison@bt.com ; Attila Takacs ; tnadeau@lucidvision.com
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 12:27 AM
Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

Hi Neil,

           Yes I totally agree with your analysis.

 

The is not going to redefine or reinvent the OAM that, as Thomas as pointed out, is done by IEEE, the ID just specify how to use a control plane mechanism (GMPLS) set-up at the same time data plane circuit and the related OAM.

 

Frankly specking I don$BCU(B see any layer violation here.

 

BR

 

Diego

 
From: neil.2.harrison@bt.com [mailto:neil.2.harrison@bt.com]
Sent: marted$Bw(B4 dicembre 2007 22.55
To: Attila Takacs; tnadeau@lucidvision.com; Diego Caviglia
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

 

I'm puzzled.  I read the draft and thought it was excellent.  It is addressing an important operational issue, ie a critical operational OAM requirement is to ensure that whatever mechanism (MP or CP) is used to set-up/tear-down a connection (so this only applies to co-cs or co-ps modes....the cl-ps mode does not have connections of course) is harmonised to the activation/deactivation of the OAM.....specifically a CV/CC flow.   If we don't ensure this then there will be obvious operational problems.  This is essentially what the draft is about.

 

Further, GMPLS is a generic OOB CP technique.....it is not a specific layer network technology per se (but it is specific in it's choice of signalling and routing components).  So one can apply a largely similar (GMPLS) CP technique to all co-cs mode technologies (whether they are partitioning a space, freq or time resource - see Note) and co-ps mode technologies (which only applies to partitioning a time resource - see Note) on the assumption that the technology is correctly architected in the DP for the mode considered.  It's pretty hard not to correctly architect the co-cs mode, but it's quite easy to incorrectly architect the co-ps mode, eg one can't violate the rules of a connection in the co-cs mode but one can in the co-ps mode.

 

Note - When we partition a time resource in regular time-slices we create a co-cs mode layer network.  When we partition a time resource in irregular time-slices we create a co-ps mode layer network.  More information on labelling and resource partitioning can be found in the work on unified modelling (of networks) in G.800.

 

regards, Neil

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Attila Takacs
Sent: 05 December 2007 02:03
To: Thomas Nadeau; Diego Caviglia
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

Hi Tom,

please see inline.

Best regards,

Attila

 
From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 2:19 AM
To: Diego Caviglia
Cc: Attila Takacs; ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com
Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

 

On Dec 4, 2007, at 7:33 PM, Diego Caviglia wrote:
Hi Thomas,

                 My understanding of the ID was that RSVP-TE can be used to $BAQ(Biggyback$BC(BCFM set-up, otherwise the scenario is: usage of RSVP-TE to set-up the LSP and NMS (meaning everything that is not control plane) to enable to CFM for the LSP.

 

As I understand it, the IEEE is working on set-up of CFM (and MEPs), as are some vendors I know. *)

This to me seems like the right way to do this.

 

IEEE specified CFM and MIBs to setup CFM.

Diego's summary is correct: one can use an NMS or a control plane to setup the data plane. In this case we propose to use GMPLS to setup the data plane: both forwarding + OAM.

From your comment I see that you$BCS(Be not happy with the fact the ID is so technology specific am I right? 

 

Precisely; its gluing CFM to RSVP-TE/GMPLS as a transport.

I do not see your point with gluing. What do you mean by "as transport"? GMPLS is just controlling OAM, CFM is run solely in the data plane.

 

 

If yes do you agree with the fact that could be useful in general to use the same signaling $BAT(Bession$BC(Bto set-up the LSP and to enable the CFM?

 

No, I do not agree.  Again, if CFM is to be set-up e2e, let the IEEE define this. Leave GMPLS to CCAMP.

 

 

Sorry, I cannot follow.

 

 

 

 

 

--Tom

 

 
 Best Regards


Diego
From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Nadeau
Sent: marted$Bw(B4 dicembre 2007 11.30
To: Attila Takacs
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com
Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

On Dec 4, 2007, at 1:51 PM, Attila Takacs wrote:
Hi Thomas,

Thank you for the comments!

Please see answers inline.

Best regards,
Attila
From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 2:58 PM
To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Cc: Attila Takacs; balazs.gero@ericsson.com
Subject: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

After reading this draft, I have some questions/comments.

1) Overall, I am concerned that the definition of a new TLV and these procedures represent

what amounts to a laying violation and ask that the ADs take a look at this

approach closely. This is similar to the now-rejected approach that was proposed

in the l2vpn WG about munging CFM + PWs.  To my reading, this is essentially

the same thing. If you want to run CFM, run it natively over the ethernet interfaces and

have no regard for the underlying topology (GMPLS, PWs, etc...) otherwise you

will be creating a mess for implementations and interoperability.

The application of the draft is exactly for what you are calling out: when CFM is run natively over the Ethernet interfaces. The document focuses on GELS and Ethernet LSPs. That is, to establish CFM entities for GMPLS controlled Ethernet LSPs. Hence, I think there is no layer violation issue.

         This solution specifically only works for GMPLS ethernet LSPs, right? 

What do I do if I want to set up MPLS ethernet LSPs (i.e.: PWs) and do CFM over those? Oh,

that is a different solution, right?  Then what do I do if I want to run CFM over some new type of

ethernet LSP in the future? More protocol hacks?  The point is to use CFM over an ethernet interface

without the underlying layers knowing. This is good networking architecture design, that simplifies

implementations and makes them more robust, as well as makes using them operationally much

easier.

2) The introductory sections in this draft give a lot of discussion about fast fault detection. I

am puzzled by this given that GMPLS networks tend to run over quickly self-healing

optical infrastructures. Is it therefore truly necessary to motivate this work by

requiring fast CFMs?

It is right that frequent CCMs are not required if the layers below Ethernet handle protection. However, the ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs where Ethernet is not just a single hop above a transport LSP. In this case Ethernet layer (for clarity GELS) may provide protection for Ethernet LSPs. In any case,  the whole point of the ID is to allow for the appropriate configuration of CFM for Ethernet LSPs with GMPLS.

3) This document does not cover E-LMI. Why not?

E-LMI is run over the MEF UNI. The ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs within a network.

For the purposes of this document, we only discuss Ethernet OAM

   [IEEE-CFM] aspects that are relevant for the connectivity monitoring

   of bidirectional point-to-point PBB-TE connections. 

4) Is this the right place to define this document or should this be done in GELS?

Well, GELS is done in CCAMP...this seems to be the right place.

5)   In section 2 you make the following statement:

2.  GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions

    To simplify the configuration of connectivity monitoring, when an

   Ethernet LSP is signalled the associated MEPs should be automatically

    established.  Further more, GMPLS signalling should be able to

  enable/disable connectivity monitoring of a particular Ethernet LSP.

To my point in #1 above, you should use the native CFM functionality over the ethernet interface and signal

those capabilities to the bridges at both ends using the IEEE CFM signaling procedures (when and if they

are created).  If you want to test the underlying GMPLS LSP(s), then you should use some

other mechanism defined for that layer such as the work stated in draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt

See the note to your point #1. There is no relation to the gmpls-LSP-ping draft.

         The point I am making is that perhaps it should.

         --Tom

 

-------------------------------------
Wataru Imajuku, Ph.D.@NTT Network Innovation Labs
TEL: +81-46-859-4315
FAX: +81-46-859-5541
Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 20:39:03 +0000 Message-ID: <47570BE6.1020007@pi.se> Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 21:36:54 +0100 From: Loa Andersson Organization: Acreo AB User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dan Li CC: Diego Caviglia , neil.2.harrison@bt.com, Attila Takacs , tnadeau@lucidvision.com, ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit All, I'm normally a bit careful with models "layer networks" that seems to be a rather cumbersome way of explaining the obvious; however in this case when it is used demonstrate that no layer violation is at hand I is inclined to accept that result. I also agree with Dan that it seems to be a good idea to use RSVP-TE to provision OAM functionality is a good idea. With that it we should just go ahead and accept this as a ccamp work item. /Loa Dan Li wrote: > MessageHi, > > I think there is a misunderstanding with respect to the objective of this draft. > > As I read this draft, it describes how to extend the RSVP protocol to support the configuration/enable the OAM function of Ethernet LSP, which I think is a good thing to do, it is not saying to use signaling protocol to do the OAM work. But anyway, it may be necessary to clarify the objective at the beginning of this draft. > > Regards, > > Dan > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Diego Caviglia > To: neil.2.harrison@bt.com ; Attila Takacs ; tnadeau@lucidvision.com > Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org > Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 12:27 AM > Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt > > > Hi Neil, > > Yes I totally agree with your analysis. > > > > The is not going to redefine or reinvent the OAM that, as Thomas as pointed out, is done by IEEE, the ID just specify how to use a control plane mechanism (GMPLS) set-up at the same time data plane circuit and the related OAM. > > > > Frankly specking I don't see any layer violation here. > > > > BR > > > > Diego > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > From: neil.2.harrison@bt.com [mailto:neil.2.harrison@bt.com] > Sent: martedì 4 dicembre 2007 22.55 > To: Attila Takacs; tnadeau@lucidvision.com; Diego Caviglia > Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org > Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt > > > > I'm puzzled. I read the draft and thought it was excellent. It is addressing an important operational issue, ie a critical operational OAM requirement is to ensure that whatever mechanism (MP or CP) is used to set-up/tear-down a connection (so this only applies to co-cs or co-ps modes....the cl-ps mode does not have connections of course) is harmonised to the activation/deactivation of the OAM.....specifically a CV/CC flow. If we don't ensure this then there will be obvious operational problems. This is essentially what the draft is about. > > > > Further, GMPLS is a generic OOB CP technique.....it is not a specific layer network technology per se (but it is specific in it's choice of signalling and routing components). So one can apply a largely similar (GMPLS) CP technique to all co-cs mode technologies (whether they are partitioning a space, freq or time resource - see Note) and co-ps mode technologies (which only applies to partitioning a time resource - see Note) on the assumption that the technology is correctly architected in the DP for the mode considered. It's pretty hard not to correctly architect the co-cs mode, but it's quite easy to incorrectly architect the co-ps mode, eg one can't violate the rules of a connection in the co-cs mode but one can in the co-ps mode. > > > > Note - When we partition a time resource in regular time-slices we create a co-cs mode layer network. When we partition a time resource in irregular time-slices we create a co-ps mode layer network. More information on labelling and resource partitioning can be found in the work on unified modelling (of networks) in G.800. > > > > regards, Neil > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Attila Takacs > Sent: 05 December 2007 02:03 > To: Thomas Nadeau; Diego Caviglia > Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org > Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt > > Hi Tom, > > please see inline. > > Best regards, > > Attila > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com] > Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 2:19 AM > To: Diego Caviglia > Cc: Attila Takacs; ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com > Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt > > > > On Dec 4, 2007, at 7:33 PM, Diego Caviglia wrote: > > > > > > Hi Thomas, > > My understanding of the ID was that RSVP-TE can be used to 'piggyback' CFM set-up, otherwise the scenario is: usage of RSVP-TE to set-up the LSP and NMS (meaning everything that is not control plane) to enable to CFM for the LSP. > > > > As I understand it, the IEEE is working on set-up of CFM (and MEPs), as are some vendors I know. *) > > This to me seems like the right way to do this. > > > > IEEE specified CFM and MIBs to setup CFM. > > Diego's summary is correct: one can use an NMS or a control plane to setup the data plane. In this case we propose to use GMPLS to setup the data plane: both forwarding + OAM. > > From your comment I see that you're not happy with the fact the ID is so technology specific am I right? > > > > Precisely; its gluing CFM to RSVP-TE/GMPLS as a transport. > > I do not see your point with gluing. What do you mean by "as transport"? GMPLS is just controlling OAM, CFM is run solely in the data plane. > > > > > > If yes do you agree with the fact that could be useful in general to use the same signaling 'session' to set-up the LSP and to enable the CFM? > > > > No, I do not agree. Again, if CFM is to be set-up e2e, let the IEEE define this. Leave GMPLS to CCAMP. > > > > > > Sorry, I cannot follow. > > > > > > > > > > > > --Tom > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards > > > Diego > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Nadeau > Sent: martedì 4 dicembre 2007 11.30 > To: Attila Takacs > Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com > Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt > > On Dec 4, 2007, at 1:51 PM, Attila Takacs wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Thomas, > > Thank you for the comments! > > Please see answers inline. > > Best regards, > Attila > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com] > Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 2:58 PM > To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org > Cc: Attila Takacs; balazs.gero@ericsson.com > Subject: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt > > After reading this draft, I have some questions/comments. > > 1) Overall, I am concerned that the definition of a new TLV and these procedures represent > > what amounts to a laying violation and ask that the ADs take a look at this > > approach closely. This is similar to the now-rejected approach that was proposed > > in the l2vpn WG about munging CFM + PWs. To my reading, this is essentially > > the same thing. If you want to run CFM, run it natively over the ethernet interfaces and > > have no regard for the underlying topology (GMPLS, PWs, etc...) otherwise you > > will be creating a mess for implementations and interoperability. > > The application of the draft is exactly for what you are calling out: when CFM is run natively over the Ethernet interfaces. The document focuses on GELS and Ethernet LSPs. That is, to establish CFM entities for GMPLS controlled Ethernet LSPs. Hence, I think there is no layer violation issue. > > This solution specifically only works for GMPLS ethernet LSPs, right? > > What do I do if I want to set up MPLS ethernet LSPs (i.e.: PWs) and do CFM over those? Oh, > > that is a different solution, right? Then what do I do if I want to run CFM over some new type of > > ethernet LSP in the future? More protocol hacks? The point is to use CFM over an ethernet interface > > without the underlying layers knowing. This is good networking architecture design, that simplifies > > implementations and makes them more robust, as well as makes using them operationally much > > easier. > > 2) The introductory sections in this draft give a lot of discussion about fast fault detection. I > > am puzzled by this given that GMPLS networks tend to run over quickly self-healing > > optical infrastructures. Is it therefore truly necessary to motivate this work by > > requiring fast CFMs? > > It is right that frequent CCMs are not required if the layers below Ethernet handle protection. However, the ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs where Ethernet is not just a single hop above a transport LSP. In this case Ethernet layer (for clarity GELS) may provide protection for Ethernet LSPs. In any case, the whole point of the ID is to allow for the appropriate configuration of CFM for Ethernet LSPs with GMPLS. > > 3) This document does not cover E-LMI. Why not? > > E-LMI is run over the MEF UNI. The ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs within a network. > > For the purposes of this document, we only discuss Ethernet OAM > > [IEEE-CFM] aspects that are relevant for the connectivity monitoring > > of bidirectional point-to-point PBB-TE connections. > > 4) Is this the right place to define this document or should this be done in GELS? > > Well, GELS is done in CCAMP...this seems to be the right place. > > 5) In section 2 you make the following statement: > > 2. GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions > > To simplify the configuration of connectivity monitoring, when an > > Ethernet LSP is signalled the associated MEPs should be automatically > > established. Further more, GMPLS signalling should be able to > > enable/disable connectivity monitoring of a particular Ethernet LSP. > > To my point in #1 above, you should use the native CFM functionality over the ethernet interface and signal > > those capabilities to the bridges at both ends using the IEEE CFM signaling procedures (when and if they > > are created). If you want to test the underlying GMPLS LSP(s), then you should use some > > other mechanism defined for that layer such as the work stated in draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt > > See the note to your point #1. There is no relation to the gmpls-LSP-ping draft. > > The point I am making is that perhaps it should. > > --Tom > > > -- Loa Andersson Principal Networking Architect Acreo AB phone: +46 8 632 77 14 Isafjordsgatan 22 mobile: +46 739 81 21 64 Kista, Sweden email: loa.andersson@acreo.se loa@pi.se This email was Anti Virus checked by Astaro Security Gateway. http://www.astaro.com Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 19:39:48 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C83776.3E1B4EEC" Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 20:37:16 +0100 Message-ID: <53CCFDD6E346CB43994852666C210E910262460F@esealmw116.eemea.ericsson.se> Thread-Topic: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Thread-Index: Acg3YGbnOB7kck6nQPSKbkKvf3bh5wADu/Jw From: "Attila Takacs" To: "Dan Li" , "Diego Caviglia" , , Cc: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C83776.3E1B4EEC Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all, =20 Neil's and Dan's summary are exact. Thanks for your comments! =20 Maybe the title of the ID caused the misunderstanding, it would say more = if it would read: "GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions to *Control* Ethernet OAM". Nevertheless, when updating the ID we will clarify our point even more. =20 Best regards, Attila ________________________________ From: Dan Li [mailto:danli@huawei.com]=20 Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 6:01 PM To: Diego Caviglia; neil.2.harrison@bt.com; Attila Takacs; = tnadeau@lucidvision.com Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt =09 =09 Hi, =20 I think there is a misunderstanding with respect to the objective of = this draft.=20 =20 As I read this draft, it describes how to extend the RSVP protocol to = support the configuration/enable the OAM function of Ethernet LSP, which = I think is a good thing to do, it is not saying to use signaling = protocol to do the OAM work. But anyway, it may be necessary to clarify = the objective at the beginning of this draft. =20 Regards, =20 Dan =20 =20 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Diego Caviglia =20 To: neil.2.harrison@bt.com ; Attila Takacs = ; tnadeau@lucidvision.com=20 Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org=20 Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 12:27 AM Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Hi Neil, Yes I totally agree with your analysis. =20 The is not going to redefine or reinvent the OAM that, as Thomas as = pointed out, is done by IEEE, the ID just specify how to use a control = plane mechanism (GMPLS) set-up at the same time data plane circuit and = the related OAM. =20 Frankly specking I don't see any layer violation here. =20 BR =20 Diego =20 =09 ________________________________ From: neil.2.harrison@bt.com [mailto:neil.2.harrison@bt.com]=20 Sent: marted=EC 4 dicembre 2007 22.55 To: Attila Takacs; tnadeau@lucidvision.com; Diego Caviglia Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt =20 I'm puzzled. I read the draft and thought it was excellent. It is = addressing an important operational issue, ie a critical operational OAM = requirement is to ensure that whatever mechanism (MP or CP) is used to = set-up/tear-down a connection (so this only applies to co-cs or co-ps = modes....the cl-ps mode does not have connections of course) is = harmonised to the activation/deactivation of the OAM.....specifically a = CV/CC flow. If we don't ensure this then there will be obvious = operational problems. This is essentially what the draft is about. =20 Further, GMPLS is a generic OOB CP technique.....it is not a specific = layer network technology per se (but it is specific in it's choice of = signalling and routing components). So one can apply a largely similar = (GMPLS) CP technique to all co-cs mode technologies (whether they are = partitioning a space, freq or time resource - see Note) and co-ps mode = technologies (which only applies to partitioning a time resource - see = Note) on the assumption that the technology is correctly architected in = the DP for the mode considered. It's pretty hard not to correctly = architect the co-cs mode, but it's quite easy to incorrectly architect = the co-ps mode, eg one can't violate the rules of a connection in the = co-cs mode but one can in the co-ps mode. =20 Note - When we partition a time resource in regular time-slices we = create a co-cs mode layer network. When we partition a time resource in = irregular time-slices we create a co-ps mode layer network. More = information on labelling and resource partitioning can be found in the = work on unified modelling (of networks) in G.800. =20 regards, Neil -----Original Message----- From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On = Behalf Of Attila Takacs Sent: 05 December 2007 02:03 To: Thomas Nadeau; Diego Caviglia Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Hi Tom, please see inline. Best regards, Attila =20 =09 ________________________________ From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com]=20 Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 2:19 AM To: Diego Caviglia Cc: Attila Takacs; ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt =20 On Dec 4, 2007, at 7:33 PM, Diego Caviglia wrote: =09 =09 =09 =09 Hi Thomas, My understanding of the ID was that RSVP-TE can be = used to 'piggyback' CFM set-up, otherwise the scenario is: usage of = RSVP-TE to set-up the LSP and NMS (meaning everything that is not = control plane) to enable to CFM for the LSP. =20 As I understand it, the IEEE is working on set-up of CFM (and MEPs), = as are some vendors I know. *) This to me seems like the right way to do this. =20 IEEE specified CFM and MIBs to setup CFM.=20 Diego's summary is correct: one can use an NMS or a control plane to = setup the data plane. In this case we propose to use GMPLS to setup the = data plane: both forwarding + OAM. =09 =09 From your comment I see that you're not happy with the fact the ID = is so technology specific am I right? =20 =20 Precisely; its gluing CFM to RSVP-TE/GMPLS as a transport.=20 I do not see your point with gluing. What do you mean by "as = transport"? GMPLS is just controlling OAM, CFM is run solely in the data = plane. =20 =20 =09 =09 If yes do you agree with the fact that could be useful in general = to use the same signaling 'session' to set-up the LSP and to enable the = CFM? =20 No, I do not agree. Again, if CFM is to be set-up e2e, let the IEEE = define this. Leave GMPLS to CCAMP. =20 =20 Sorry, I cannot follow. =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 --Tom =20 =20 =09 =09 =09 =09 Best Regards =09 Diego =09 =09 ________________________________ From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On = Behalf Of Thomas Nadeau Sent: marted=EC 4 dicembre 2007 11.30 To: Attila Takacs Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt On Dec 4, 2007, at 1:51 PM, Attila Takacs wrote: =09 =09 =09 =09 Hi Thomas, Thank you for the comments! Please see answers inline. Best regards, Attila =09 =09 ________________________________ From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com]=20 Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 2:58 PM To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Cc: Attila Takacs; balazs.gero@ericsson.com Subject: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt After reading this draft, I have some questions/comments. 1) Overall, I am concerned that the definition of a new TLV and = these procedures represent=20 what amounts to a laying violation and ask that the ADs take a look = at this approach closely. This is similar to the now-rejected approach that = was proposed in the l2vpn WG about munging CFM + PWs. To my reading, this is = essentially the same thing. If you want to run CFM, run it natively over the = ethernet interfaces and have no regard for the underlying topology (GMPLS, PWs, etc...) = otherwise you=20 will be creating a mess for implementations and interoperability. =20 The application of the draft is exactly for what you are calling = out: when CFM is run natively over the Ethernet interfaces. The document = focuses on GELS and Ethernet LSPs. That is, to establish CFM entities = for GMPLS controlled Ethernet LSPs. Hence, I think there is no layer = violation issue. This solution specifically only works for GMPLS ethernet = LSPs, right? =20 What do I do if I want to set up MPLS ethernet LSPs (i.e.: PWs) and = do CFM over those? Oh, that is a different solution, right? Then what do I do if I want to = run CFM over some new type of ethernet LSP in the future? More protocol hacks? The point is to = use CFM over an ethernet interface without the underlying layers knowing. This is good networking = architecture design, that simplifies implementations and makes them more robust, as well as makes using = them operationally much easier.=20 2) The introductory sections in this draft give a lot of discussion = about fast fault detection. I am puzzled by this given that GMPLS networks tend to run over = quickly self-healing optical infrastructures. Is it therefore truly necessary to = motivate this work by requiring fast CFMs? It is right that frequent CCMs are not required if the layers below = Ethernet handle protection. However, the ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs = where Ethernet is not just a single hop above a transport LSP. In this = case Ethernet layer (for clarity GELS) may provide protection for = Ethernet LSPs. In any case, the whole point of the ID is to allow for = the appropriate configuration of CFM for Ethernet LSPs with GMPLS. 3) This document does not cover E-LMI. Why not? E-LMI is run over the MEF UNI. The ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs = within a network. For the purposes of this document, we only discuss Ethernet OAM [IEEE-CFM] aspects that are relevant for the connectivity = monitoring of bidirectional point-to-point PBB-TE connections. =20 4) Is this the right place to define this document or should this = be done in GELS? Well, GELS is done in CCAMP...this seems to be the right place. 5) In section 2 you make the following statement: 2. GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions To simplify the configuration of connectivity monitoring, when = an Ethernet LSP is signalled the associated MEPs should be = automatically established. Further more, GMPLS signalling should be able to enable/disable connectivity monitoring of a particular Ethernet = LSP. To my point in #1 above, you should use the native CFM = functionality over the ethernet interface and signal those capabilities to the bridges at both ends using the IEEE CFM = signaling procedures (when and if they are created). If you want to test the underlying GMPLS LSP(s), = then you should use some other mechanism defined for that layer such as the work stated in = draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt See the note to your point #1. There is no relation to the = gmpls-LSP-ping draft.=20 The point I am making is that perhaps it should. --Tom =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C83776.3E1B4EEC Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message=

Hi=20 all,
 
Neil's and Dan's summary are exact. Thanks = for your=20 comments!
 
Maybe the title of the ID caused the=20 misunderstanding, it would say more if it would read: "GMPLS = RSVP-TE=20 Extensions to *Control* Ethernet OAM".
Nevertheless, when updating the ID we=20 will clarify our point even = more.
 
Best = regards,
Attila

From: Dan Li = [mailto:danli@huawei.com]=20
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 6:01 PM
To: = Diego=20 Caviglia; neil.2.harrison@bt.com; Attila Takacs;=20 tnadeau@lucidvision.com
Cc: = ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject:=20 Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

Hi,
 
I think there is a misunderstanding with respect to the = objective of=20 this draft.
 
As I read this draft, it describes how to extend = the RSVP=20 protocol to support the configuration/enable the OAM function of = Ethernet=20 LSP, which I think is a good thing to do, it is not saying to use = signaling protocol to do the OAM work. But anyway, it may be necessary = to=20 clarify the objective at the beginning of this draft.
 
Regards,
 
Dan
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Diego Caviglia =
To: neil.2.harrison@bt.com ; = Attila Takacs ; tnadeau@lucidvision.com =
Sent: Thursday, December 06, = 2007 12:27=20 AM
Subject: RE:=20 draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

Hi=20 Neil,

          =20 Yes I totally agree with your analysis.

 

The is = not going to=20 redefine or reinvent the OAM that, as Thomas as pointed out, is done = by=20 IEEE, the ID just specify how to use a control plane mechanism = (GMPLS)=20 set-up at the same time data plane circuit and the related=20 OAM.

 

Frankly = specking I=20 don=92t see any layer violation here.

 

BR

 

Diego

 

From: neil.2.harrison@bt.com=20 [mailto:neil.2.harrison@bt.com]
Sent: marted=EC 4 dicembre = 2007=20 22.55
To: = Attila Takacs; tnadeau@lucidvision.com; = Diego=20 Caviglia
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE:=20 = draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

 

I'm=20 puzzled.  I read the draft and thought it was excellent.  = It is=20 addressing an important operational issue, ie a critical operational = OAM=20 requirement is to ensure that whatever mechanism (MP or CP) is used = to=20 set-up/tear-down a connection (so this only applies to co-cs or = co-ps=20 modes....the cl-ps mode does not have connections of course) is = harmonised=20 to the activation/deactivation of the OAM.....specifically a CV/CC=20 flow.   If we don't ensure this then there will be obvious = operational problems.  This is essentially what the draft is=20 about.

 

Further,=20 GMPLS is a generic OOB CP technique.....it is not a = specific layer=20 network technology per se (but it is specific in it's choice of = signalling=20 and routing components).  So one can apply a largely similar = (GMPLS) CP=20 technique to all co-cs mode technologies (whether they are = partitioning a=20 space, freq or time resource - see Note) and co-ps mode = technologies=20 (which only applies to partitioning a time resource - see Note) on = the=20 assumption that the technology is correctly architected in the DP = for the=20 mode considered.  It's pretty hard not to correctly = architect the=20 co-cs mode, but it's quite easy to incorrectly architect the co-ps = mode, eg=20 one can't violate the rules of a connection in the co-cs mode but = one can in=20 the co-ps mode.

 

Note -=20 When we partition a time resource in regular time-slices we create a = co-cs=20 mode layer network.  When we partition a time resource in = irregular=20 time-slices we create a co-ps mode layer network.  More = information on=20 labelling and resource partitioning can be found in the work on = unified=20 modelling (of networks) in G.800.

 

regards,=20 Neil

-----Original=20 Message-----
From:=20 owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] = On Behalf Of = Attila = Takacs
Sent: 05 December 2007=20 02:03
To: = Thomas Nadeau;=20 Diego Caviglia
Cc:=20 ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE:=20 = draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

Hi=20 Tom,

please = see=20 inline.

Best=20 regards,

Attila

 

From:=20 Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December = 05, 2007=20 2:19 AM
To: = Diego=20 Caviglia
Cc:=20 Attila Takacs; = ccamp@ops.ietf.org;=20 balazs.gero@ericsson.com
Subject: Re:=20 = draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

 

On Dec 4, 2007, at 7:33 PM, Diego = Caviglia=20 wrote:



Hi=20 Thomas,

           =      =20 My understanding of the ID was that RSVP-TE can be used to = =91piggyback=92=20 CFM set-up, otherwise the scenario is: usage of RSVP-TE to = set-up the=20 LSP and NMS (meaning everything that is not control plane) to = enable to=20 CFM for the LSP.

 

As I understand it, the IEEE is = working on=20 set-up of CFM (and MEPs), as are some vendors I know.=20 *)

This to me seems like the right way to = do=20 this.

 

IEEE = specified=20 CFM and MIBs to setup = CFM. 

Diego's = summary=20 is correct: one can use an NMS or a control plane to setup = the data=20 plane. In this case we propose to use GMPLS to setup the data = plane:=20 both forwarding + OAM.

From your comment I = see that=20 you=92re not happy with the fact the ID is so technology = specific am I=20 right?  

 

Precisely; its gluing CFM to = RSVP-TE/GMPLS as a=20 transport. 

I do = not see your=20 point with gluing. What do you mean by "as transport"? GMPLS is = just=20 controlling OAM, CFM is run solely in the data=20 plane.

 

 

If yes do you agree = with the=20 fact that could be useful in general to use the same signaling = =91session=92 to set-up the LSP and to enable the=20 CFM?

 

No, I do not agree.  Again, if = CFM is to be=20 set-up e2e, let the IEEE define this. Leave GMPLS to=20 CCAMP.

 

 

Sorry, = I cannot=20 follow.

 

 

 

 

 

--Tom

 

 



 Best=20 Regards


Diego

From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org = [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org<= /A>] On Behalf Of Thomas=20 Nadeau
Sent: marted=EC 4 dicembre = 2007=20 11.30
To: Attila = Takacs
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com
= Subject: Re:=20 draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

On = Dec 4,=20 2007, at 1:51 PM, Attila Takacs=20 wrote:




Hi=20 Thomas,

Thank=20 you for the comments!

Please see=20 answers inline.

Best=20 regards,
Attila

From: Thomas=20 Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, December = 04, 2007=20 2:58 PM
To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Cc: Attila Takacs; balazs.gero@ericsson.com
= Subject: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth= -oam-ext-00.txt

After=20 reading this draft, I have some=20 = questions/comments.

1)=20 Overall, I am concerned that the definition of a new TLV = and=20 these procedures=20 = represent 

what = amounts to a=20 laying violation and ask that the ADs take a look at=20 this

approach closely.=20 This is similar to the now-rejected approach that was=20 proposed

in the = l2vpn WG=20 about munging CFM + PWs.  To my reading, this is=20 = essentially

the = same thing. If=20 you want to run CFM, run it natively over the ethernet = interfaces=20 and

have no = regard for=20 the underlying topology (GMPLS, PWs, etc...) otherwise=20 you 

will be = creating a=20 mess for implementations and=20 interoperability.  

The=20 application of the draft is exactly for what you are = calling out:=20 when CFM is run natively over the Ethernet interfaces. The = document=20 focuses on GELS and Ethernet LSPs. That is, to = establish CFM=20 entities for GMPLS controlled Ethernet LSPs. Hence, I think = there=20 is no layer violation issue.

          This solution specifically only works for = GMPLS=20 ethernet LSPs, right?=20  

What do I do if I want = to set up=20 MPLS ethernet LSPs (i.e.: PWs) and do CFM over those?=20 Oh,

that is a different = solution,=20 right?  Then what do I do if I want to run CFM over some = new type=20 of

ethernet LSP in the = future? More=20 protocol hacks?  The point is to use CFM over an ethernet=20 interface

without the underlying = layers=20 knowing. This is good networking architecture design, that=20 simplifies

implementations and = makes them=20 more robust, as well as makes using them operationally=20 much

easier. 

2) The=20 introductory sections in this draft give a lot of discussion = about=20 fast fault detection.=20 I

am = puzzled by=20 this given that GMPLS networks tend to run over quickly=20 = self-healing

optical=20 infrastructures. Is it therefore truly necessary = to=20 motivate this work=20 by

requiring fast=20 = CFMs?

It = is right=20 that frequent CCMs are not required if the layers below = Ethernet=20 handle protection. However, the ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs = where=20 Ethernet is not just a single hop above a transport=20 LSP. In this case Ethernet layer (for clarity GELS) = may=20 provide protection for Ethernet LSPs. In any case,  = the=20 whole point of the ID is to allow for the appropriate = configuration of=20 CFM for Ethernet LSPs with GMPLS.

3)=20 This document does not cover E-LMI. Why=20 = not?

E-LMI is run=20 over the MEF UNI. The ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs within = a=20 network.

For the = purposes of=20 this document, we only discuss Ethernet=20 OAM

  =20 [IEEE-CFM] aspects that are relevant for the connectivity=20 monitoring

  =20 of bidirectional point-to-point PBB-TE connections.=20  

4)=20 Is this the right place to define this document or should = this be=20 done in GELS?

Well, GELS is=20 done in CCAMP...this seems to be the right = place.

5)=20   In section 2 you make the following=20 statement:

2. =20 GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions

    To = simplify the=20 configuration of connectivity monitoring, when=20 an

  =20 Ethernet LSP is signalled the associated MEPs should be=20 automatically

    = established. =20 Further more, GMPLS signalling should be able=20 to

  enable/disable=20 connectivity monitoring of a particular Ethernet=20 LSP.

To=20 my point in #1 above, you should use the native CFM = functionality=20 over the ethernet interface and = signal

those=20 capabilities to the bridges at both ends using the IEEE CFM=20 signaling procedures (when and if = they

are=20 created).  If you want to test the underlying GMPLS = LSP(s),=20 then you should use some

other=20 mechanism defined for that layer such as the work stated=20 in draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt=

See = the=20 note to your point #1. There is no relation to the=20 gmpls-LSP-ping draft. 

          The point I am making is that perhaps it=20 should.

          --Tom

 

=
------_=_NextPart_001_01C83776.3E1B4EEC-- Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 17:01:36 +0000 Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 01:00:41 +0800 From: Dan Li Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt To: Diego Caviglia , neil.2.harrison@bt.com, Attila Takacs , tnadeau@lucidvision.com Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Message-id: <002c01c83760$5edf74f0$42418182@dan> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_ri+RKGJ58xhymCKK5aRKfw)" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_ri+RKGJ58xhymCKK5aRKfw) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable MessageHi, I think there is a misunderstanding with respect to the objective of = this draft.=20 As I read this draft, it describes how to extend the RSVP protocol to = support the configuration/enable the OAM function of Ethernet LSP, which = I think is a good thing to do, it is not saying to use signaling = protocol to do the OAM work. But anyway, it may be necessary to clarify = the objective at the beginning of this draft. Regards, Dan ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Diego Caviglia=20 To: neil.2.harrison@bt.com ; Attila Takacs ; tnadeau@lucidvision.com=20 Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org=20 Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 12:27 AM Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Hi Neil, Yes I totally agree with your analysis. =20 The is not going to redefine or reinvent the OAM that, as Thomas as = pointed out, is done by IEEE, the ID just specify how to use a control = plane mechanism (GMPLS) set-up at the same time data plane circuit and = the related OAM. =20 Frankly specking I don't see any layer violation here. =20 BR =20 Diego =20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- From: neil.2.harrison@bt.com [mailto:neil.2.harrison@bt.com]=20 Sent: marted=EC 4 dicembre 2007 22.55 To: Attila Takacs; tnadeau@lucidvision.com; Diego Caviglia Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt =20 I'm puzzled. I read the draft and thought it was excellent. It is = addressing an important operational issue, ie a critical operational OAM = requirement is to ensure that whatever mechanism (MP or CP) is used to = set-up/tear-down a connection (so this only applies to co-cs or co-ps = modes....the cl-ps mode does not have connections of course) is = harmonised to the activation/deactivation of the OAM.....specifically a = CV/CC flow. If we don't ensure this then there will be obvious = operational problems. This is essentially what the draft is about. =20 Further, GMPLS is a generic OOB CP technique.....it is not a specific = layer network technology per se (but it is specific in it's choice of = signalling and routing components). So one can apply a largely similar = (GMPLS) CP technique to all co-cs mode technologies (whether they are = partitioning a space, freq or time resource - see Note) and co-ps mode = technologies (which only applies to partitioning a time resource - see = Note) on the assumption that the technology is correctly architected in = the DP for the mode considered. It's pretty hard not to correctly = architect the co-cs mode, but it's quite easy to incorrectly architect = the co-ps mode, eg one can't violate the rules of a connection in the = co-cs mode but one can in the co-ps mode. =20 Note - When we partition a time resource in regular time-slices we = create a co-cs mode layer network. When we partition a time resource in = irregular time-slices we create a co-ps mode layer network. More = information on labelling and resource partitioning can be found in the = work on unified modelling (of networks) in G.800. =20 regards, Neil -----Original Message----- From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On = Behalf Of Attila Takacs Sent: 05 December 2007 02:03 To: Thomas Nadeau; Diego Caviglia Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Hi Tom, please see inline. Best regards, Attila =20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com]=20 Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 2:19 AM To: Diego Caviglia Cc: Attila Takacs; ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt =20 On Dec 4, 2007, at 7:33 PM, Diego Caviglia wrote: Hi Thomas, My understanding of the ID was that RSVP-TE can = be used to 'piggyback' CFM set-up, otherwise the scenario is: usage of = RSVP-TE to set-up the LSP and NMS (meaning everything that is not = control plane) to enable to CFM for the LSP. =20 As I understand it, the IEEE is working on set-up of CFM (and = MEPs), as are some vendors I know. *) This to me seems like the right way to do this. =20 IEEE specified CFM and MIBs to setup CFM.=20 Diego's summary is correct: one can use an NMS or a control plane to = setup the data plane. In this case we propose to use GMPLS to setup the = data plane: both forwarding + OAM. From your comment I see that you're not happy with the fact the = ID is so technology specific am I right? =20 =20 Precisely; its gluing CFM to RSVP-TE/GMPLS as a transport.=20 I do not see your point with gluing. What do you mean by "as = transport"? GMPLS is just controlling OAM, CFM is run solely in the data = plane. =20 =20 If yes do you agree with the fact that could be useful in = general to use the same signaling 'session' to set-up the LSP and to = enable the CFM? =20 No, I do not agree. Again, if CFM is to be set-up e2e, let the = IEEE define this. Leave GMPLS to CCAMP. =20 =20 Sorry, I cannot follow. =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 --Tom =20 =20 Best Regards Diego -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] = On Behalf Of Thomas Nadeau Sent: marted=EC 4 dicembre 2007 11.30 To: Attila Takacs Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt On Dec 4, 2007, at 1:51 PM, Attila Takacs wrote: Hi Thomas, Thank you for the comments! Please see answers inline. Best regards, Attila ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com]=20 Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 2:58 PM To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Cc: Attila Takacs; balazs.gero@ericsson.com Subject: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt After reading this draft, I have some questions/comments. 1) Overall, I am concerned that the definition of a new TLV and = these procedures represent=20 what amounts to a laying violation and ask that the ADs take a = look at this approach closely. This is similar to the now-rejected approach = that was proposed in the l2vpn WG about munging CFM + PWs. To my reading, this is = essentially the same thing. If you want to run CFM, run it natively over the = ethernet interfaces and have no regard for the underlying topology (GMPLS, PWs, etc...) = otherwise you=20 will be creating a mess for implementations and = interoperability. =20 The application of the draft is exactly for what you are calling = out: when CFM is run natively over the Ethernet interfaces. The document = focuses on GELS and Ethernet LSPs. That is, to establish CFM entities = for GMPLS controlled Ethernet LSPs. Hence, I think there is no layer = violation issue. This solution specifically only works for GMPLS ethernet = LSPs, right? =20 What do I do if I want to set up MPLS ethernet LSPs (i.e.: PWs) = and do CFM over those? Oh, that is a different solution, right? Then what do I do if I want = to run CFM over some new type of ethernet LSP in the future? More protocol hacks? The point is to = use CFM over an ethernet interface without the underlying layers knowing. This is good networking = architecture design, that simplifies implementations and makes them more robust, as well as makes using = them operationally much easier.=20 2) The introductory sections in this draft give a lot of = discussion about fast fault detection. I am puzzled by this given that GMPLS networks tend to run over = quickly self-healing optical infrastructures. Is it therefore truly necessary to = motivate this work by requiring fast CFMs? It is right that frequent CCMs are not required if the layers = below Ethernet handle protection. However, the ID focuses on Ethernet = LSPs where Ethernet is not just a single hop above a transport LSP. In = this case Ethernet layer (for clarity GELS) may provide protection for = Ethernet LSPs. In any case, the whole point of the ID is to allow for = the appropriate configuration of CFM for Ethernet LSPs with GMPLS. 3) This document does not cover E-LMI. Why not? E-LMI is run over the MEF UNI. The ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs = within a network. For the purposes of this document, we only discuss Ethernet = OAM [IEEE-CFM] aspects that are relevant for the connectivity = monitoring of bidirectional point-to-point PBB-TE connections. =20 4) Is this the right place to define this document or should = this be done in GELS? Well, GELS is done in CCAMP...this seems to be the right place. 5) In section 2 you make the following statement: 2. GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions To simplify the configuration of connectivity monitoring, = when an Ethernet LSP is signalled the associated MEPs should be = automatically established. Further more, GMPLS signalling should be = able to enable/disable connectivity monitoring of a particular = Ethernet LSP. To my point in #1 above, you should use the native CFM = functionality over the ethernet interface and signal those capabilities to the bridges at both ends using the IEEE = CFM signaling procedures (when and if they are created). If you want to test the underlying GMPLS = LSP(s), then you should use some other mechanism defined for that layer such as the work stated = in draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt See the note to your point #1. There is no relation to the = gmpls-LSP-ping draft.=20 The point I am making is that perhaps it should. --Tom =20 --Boundary_(ID_ri+RKGJ58xhymCKK5aRKfw) Content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Message=
Hi,
 
I think there is a misunderstanding with respect to the = objective of=20 this draft.
 
As I read this draft, it describes how to extend the RSVP = protocol to support the configuration/enable the OAM function of = Ethernet=20 LSP, which I think is a good thing to do, it is not saying to use = signaling=20 protocol to do the OAM work. But anyway, it may be necessary to clarify = the=20 objective at the beginning of this draft.
 
Regards,
 
Dan
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Diego Caviglia
To: neil.2.harrison@bt.com ; Attila Takacs ; tnadeau@lucidvision.com =
Sent: Thursday, December 06, = 2007 12:27=20 AM
Subject: RE:=20 draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

Hi=20 Neil,

          =20 Yes I totally agree with your analysis.

 

The is not = going to=20 redefine or reinvent the OAM that, as Thomas as pointed out, is done = by IEEE,=20 the ID just specify how to use a control plane mechanism (GMPLS) = set-up at the=20 same time data plane circuit and the related = OAM.

 

Frankly = specking I=20 don=92t see any layer violation here.

 

BR

 

Diego

 

From: neil.2.harrison@bt.com=20 [mailto:neil.2.harrison@bt.com]
Sent: marted=EC 4 dicembre 2007 = 22.55
To: = Attila Takacs; tnadeau@lucidvision.com; = Diego=20 Caviglia
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE:=20 = draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

 

I'm=20 puzzled.  I read the draft and thought it was excellent.  It = is=20 addressing an important operational issue, ie a critical operational = OAM=20 requirement is to ensure that whatever mechanism (MP or CP) is used to = set-up/tear-down a connection (so this only applies to co-cs or co-ps=20 modes....the cl-ps mode does not have connections of course) is = harmonised to=20 the activation/deactivation of the OAM.....specifically a CV/CC=20 flow.   If we don't ensure this then there will be obvious=20 operational problems.  This is essentially what the draft is=20 about.

 

Further,=20 GMPLS is a generic OOB CP technique.....it is not a specific = layer=20 network technology per se (but it is specific in it's choice of = signalling and=20 routing components).  So one can apply a largely similar (GMPLS) = CP=20 technique to all co-cs mode technologies (whether they are = partitioning a=20 space, freq or time resource - see Note) and co-ps mode = technologies=20 (which only applies to partitioning a time resource - see Note) on the = assumption that the technology is correctly architected in the DP for = the mode=20 considered.  It's pretty hard not to correctly architect the = co-cs=20 mode, but it's quite easy to incorrectly architect the co-ps mode, eg = one=20 can't violate the rules of a connection in the co-cs mode but one can = in the=20 co-ps mode.

 

Note -=20 When we partition a time resource in regular time-slices we create a = co-cs=20 mode layer network.  When we partition a time resource in = irregular=20 time-slices we create a co-ps mode layer network.  More = information on=20 labelling and resource partitioning can be found in the work on = unified=20 modelling (of networks) in G.800.

 

regards,=20 Neil

-----Original=20 Message-----
From:=20 owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Attila Takacs
Sent: 05 December 2007=20 02:03
To: Thomas = Nadeau;=20 Diego Caviglia
Cc:=20 ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject:=20 RE:=20 = draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

Hi=20 Tom,

please = see=20 inline.

Best=20 regards,

Attila

 

From:=20 Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December = 05, 2007=20 2:19 AM
To: = Diego=20 Caviglia
Cc:=20 Attila Takacs;=20 ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com
Subject: Re:=20 = draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

 

On Dec 4, 2007, at 7:33 PM, Diego = Caviglia=20 wrote:



Hi=20 Thomas,

           =      =20 My understanding of the ID was that RSVP-TE can be used to = =91piggyback=92 CFM=20 set-up, otherwise the scenario is: usage of RSVP-TE to set-up the = LSP and=20 NMS (meaning everything that is not control plane) to enable to = CFM for=20 the LSP.

 

As I understand it, the IEEE is working = on set-up=20 of CFM (and MEPs), as are some vendors I know.=20 *)

This to me seems like the right way to = do=20 this.

 

IEEE = specified CFM=20 and MIBs to setup CFM. 

Diego's = summary is=20 correct: one can use an NMS or a control plane to setup the = data plane.=20 In this case we propose to use GMPLS to setup the data plane: = both=20 forwarding + OAM.

From your comment I = see that=20 you=92re not happy with the fact the ID is so technology = specific am I=20 right?  

 

Precisely; its gluing CFM to = RSVP-TE/GMPLS as a=20 transport. 

I do not = see your=20 point with gluing. What do you mean by "as transport"? GMPLS is just = controlling OAM, CFM is run solely in the data=20 plane.

 

 

If yes do you agree = with the=20 fact that could be useful in general to use the same signaling = =91session=92=20 to set-up the LSP and to enable the=20 CFM?

 

No, I do not agree.  Again, if CFM = is to be=20 set-up e2e, let the IEEE define this. Leave GMPLS to=20 CCAMP.

 

 

Sorry, I = cannot=20 follow.

 

 

 

 

 

--Tom

 

 



 Best = Regards


Diego

From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org = [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org<= /A>] On Behalf Of Thomas=20 Nadeau
Sent: marted=EC 4 dicembre = 2007=20 11.30
To: Attila=20 Takacs
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com
= Subject: Re:=20 draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

On = Dec 4,=20 2007, at 1:51 PM, Attila = Takacs=20 wrote:




Hi=20 Thomas,

Thank=20 you for the comments!

Please = see=20 answers inline.

Best=20 regards,
Attila

From: Thomas Nadeau=20 [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, = 2007 2:58=20 PM
To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Cc: Attila Takacs; balazs.gero@ericsson.com
= Subject: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth= -oam-ext-00.txt

After=20 reading this draft, I have some=20 = questions/comments.

1) = Overall, I am=20 concerned that the definition of a new TLV and these procedures=20 = represent 

what amounts to a laying = violation=20 and ask that the ADs take a look at=20 this

approach closely. This = is similar=20 to the now-rejected approach that was=20 proposed

in the l2vpn WG about = munging CFM=20 + PWs.  To my reading, this is=20 essentially

the same thing. If you = want to run=20 CFM, run it natively over the ethernet interfaces=20 and

have no regard for the = underlying=20 topology (GMPLS, PWs, etc...) otherwise=20 you 

will be creating a mess = for=20 implementations and interoperability.  

The=20 application of the draft is exactly for what you are calling = out:=20 when CFM is run natively over the Ethernet interfaces. The = document=20 focuses on GELS and Ethernet LSPs. That is, to establish = CFM=20 entities for GMPLS controlled Ethernet LSPs. Hence, I think = there is=20 no layer violation issue.

          This solution specifically only works for = GMPLS=20 ethernet LSPs, right?=20  

What do I do if I want to = set up=20 MPLS ethernet LSPs (i.e.: PWs) and do CFM over those?=20 Oh,

that is a different = solution, right?=20  Then what do I do if I want to run CFM over some new type=20 of

ethernet LSP in the = future? More=20 protocol hacks?  The point is to use CFM over an ethernet=20 interface

without the underlying = layers=20 knowing. This is good networking architecture design, that=20 simplifies

implementations and makes = them more=20 robust, as well as makes using them operationally=20 much

easier. 

2) The=20 introductory sections in this draft give a lot of discussion = about=20 fast fault detection.=20 I

am = puzzled by this=20 given that GMPLS networks tend to run over quickly=20 = self-healing

optical = infrastructures. Is it therefore truly necessary to = motivate=20 this work = by

requiring fast=20 = CFMs?

It is = right=20 that frequent CCMs are not required if the layers below Ethernet = handle=20 protection. However, the ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs where = Ethernet=20 is not just a single hop above a transport = LSP. In this=20 case Ethernet layer (for clarity GELS) may provide = protection for=20 Ethernet LSPs. In any case,  the whole point of the ID = is to=20 allow for the appropriate configuration of CFM for Ethernet LSPs = with=20 GMPLS.

3) This=20 document does not cover E-LMI. Why=20 = not?

E-LMI = is run=20 over the MEF UNI. The ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs within a=20 network.

For the = purposes of=20 this document, we only discuss Ethernet = OAM

  =20 [IEEE-CFM] aspects that are relevant for the connectivity=20 monitoring

  =20 of bidirectional point-to-point PBB-TE connections.=20  

4)=20 Is this the right place to define this document or should this = be done=20 in GELS?

Well, = GELS is=20 done in CCAMP...this seems to be the right = place.

5)=20   In section 2 you make the following=20 statement:

2. =20 GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions

    To simplify = the=20 configuration of connectivity monitoring, when=20 an

  =20 Ethernet LSP is signalled the associated MEPs should be=20 automatically

    = established. =20 Further more, GMPLS signalling should be able=20 to

  enable/disable=20 connectivity monitoring of a particular Ethernet=20 LSP.

To=20 my point in #1 above, you should use the native CFM = functionality over=20 the ethernet interface and = signal

those=20 capabilities to the bridges at both ends using the IEEE CFM = signaling=20 procedures (when and if they

are=20 created).  If you want to test the underlying GMPLS = LSP(s), then=20 you should use some

other=20 mechanism defined for that layer such as the work stated=20 in draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt=

See = the=20 note to your point #1. There is no relation to the=20 gmpls-LSP-ping draft. 

          The point I am making is that perhaps it=20 should.

          --Tom

 

=
--Boundary_(ID_ri+RKGJ58xhymCKK5aRKfw)-- Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 16:53:44 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C8375F.41AC3A97" Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 17:52:41 +0100 Message-ID: <0428AC48A879ED46A94F39D5665DF684DF2FC0@esealmw110.eemea.ericsson.se> Thread-Topic: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Thread-Index: Acg23NTgoIFKofLLTTqsgyKk8dFwjQAgfBwg From: "Diego Caviglia" To: "Thomas Nadeau" Cc: "Attila Takacs" , , This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C8375F.41AC3A97 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Thomas, Please see some more comment in line. =20 BR =20 Diego =20 ________________________________ From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com]=20 Sent: marted=EC 4 dicembre 2007 17.19 To: Diego Caviglia Cc: Attila Takacs; ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt =20 =20 On Dec 4, 2007, at 7:33 PM, Diego Caviglia wrote: Hi Thomas, My understanding of the ID was that RSVP-TE can be used = to 'piggyback' CFM set-up, otherwise the scenario is: usage of RSVP-TE = to set-up the LSP and NMS (meaning everything that is not control plane) = to enable to CFM for the LSP. =20 As I understand it, the IEEE is working on set-up of CFM (and = MEPs), as are some vendors I know. *) This to me seems like the right way to do this. [DC] no doubt about this and in fact I don't think the ID was about = defining the CFM is was just about the usage of GMPLS to enable it. >From your comment I see that you're not happy with the fact the ID is so = technology specific am I right? =20 =20 Precisely; its gluing CFM to RSVP-TE/GMPLS as a transport.=20 If yes do you agree with the fact that could be useful in general to use = the same signaling 'session' to set-up the LSP and to enable the CFM? =20 No, I do not agree. Again, if CFM is to be set-up e2e, let = the IEEE define this. Leave GMPLS to CCAMP. [DC] I think that we have a total agreement on this, no one is saying = that CCAMP has to define the or re-define the CFM as no one redefined = g707 or other SDH ITU-T spec when we developed GMPLS for SONET/SDH. =20 --Tom =20 =20 Best Regards Diego =20 ________________________________ From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On = Behalf Of Thomas Nadeau Sent: marted=EC 4 dicembre 2007 11.30 To: Attila Takacs Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt =20 =20 On Dec 4, 2007, at 1:51 PM, Attila Takacs wrote: Hi Thomas, =20 Thank you for the comments! Please see answers inline. =20 Best regards, Attila =20 =09 ________________________________ From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com]=20 Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 2:58 PM To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Cc: Attila Takacs; balazs.gero@ericsson.com Subject: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt =20 =20 After reading this draft, I have some questions/comments. =20 1) Overall, I am concerned that the definition of a new TLV and these = procedures represent=20 what amounts to a laying violation and ask that the ADs take a look at = this approach closely. This is similar to the now-rejected approach that was = proposed in the l2vpn WG about munging CFM + PWs. To my reading, this is = essentially the same thing. If you want to run CFM, run it natively over the = ethernet interfaces and have no regard for the underlying topology (GMPLS, PWs, etc...) = otherwise you=20 will be creating a mess for implementations and interoperability. =20 The application of the draft is exactly for what you are calling out: = when CFM is run natively over the Ethernet interfaces. The document = focuses on GELS and Ethernet LSPs. That is, to establish CFM entities = for GMPLS controlled Ethernet LSPs. Hence, I think there is no layer = violation issue. =20 This solution specifically only works for GMPLS ethernet LSPs, = right? =20 What do I do if I want to set up MPLS ethernet LSPs (i.e.: PWs) and do = CFM over those? Oh, that is a different solution, right? Then what do I do if I want to run = CFM over some new type of ethernet LSP in the future? More protocol hacks? The point is to use = CFM over an ethernet interface without the underlying layers knowing. This is good networking = architecture design, that simplifies implementations and makes them more robust, as well as makes using them = operationally much easier.=20 2) The introductory sections in this draft give a lot of discussion = about fast fault detection. I am puzzled by this given that GMPLS networks tend to run over quickly = self-healing optical infrastructures. Is it therefore truly necessary to motivate = this work by requiring fast CFMs? It is right that frequent CCMs are not required if the layers below = Ethernet handle protection. However, the ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs = where Ethernet is not just a single hop above a transport LSP. In this = case Ethernet layer (for clarity GELS) may provide protection for = Ethernet LSPs. In any case, the whole point of the ID is to allow for = the appropriate configuration of CFM for Ethernet LSPs with GMPLS. =20 3) This document does not cover E-LMI. Why not? E-LMI is run over the MEF UNI. The ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs within a = network. =20 =20 For the purposes of this document, we only discuss Ethernet OAM [IEEE-CFM] aspects that are relevant for the connectivity = monitoring of bidirectional point-to-point PBB-TE connections. =20 =20 4) Is this the right place to define this document or should this be = done in GELS? Well, GELS is done in CCAMP...this seems to be the right place. =20 =20 5) In section 2 you make the following statement: =20 2. GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions =20 To simplify the configuration of connectivity monitoring, when an Ethernet LSP is signalled the associated MEPs should be = automatically established. Further more, GMPLS signalling should be able to enable/disable connectivity monitoring of a particular Ethernet LSP. =20 =20 To my point in #1 above, you should use the native CFM functionality = over the ethernet interface and signal those capabilities to the bridges at both ends using the IEEE CFM = signaling procedures (when and if they are created). If you want to test the underlying GMPLS LSP(s), then = you should use some other mechanism defined for that layer such as the work stated in = draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt See the note to your point #1. There is no relation to the = gmpls-LSP-ping draft.=20 =20 The point I am making is that perhaps it should. =20 --Tom =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C8375F.41AC3A97 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi = Thomas,

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0 =A0=A0=A0=A0Please see some more comment in line.

 

BR

 

Diego

 

From: = Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com]
Sent: marted=EC 4 = dicembre 2007 17.19
To: Diego Caviglia
Cc: Attila Takacs; ccamp@ops.ietf.org; = balazs.gero@ericsson.com
Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

 

 

On Dec 4, 2007, at 7:33 PM, Diego Caviglia = wrote:



Hi = Thomas,

      =            My understanding of the ID was that RSVP-TE can be used to = ‘piggyback’ CFM set-up, otherwise the scenario is: usage of RSVP-TE to set-up the LSP = and NMS (meaning everything that is not control plane) to enable to CFM for the = LSP.

 

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 = As I understand it, the IEEE is working on set-up of CFM (and MEPs), as are = some vendors I know. *)

This to me seems like the right way to do = this.

[DC] no doubt about this and in fact I don’t = think the ID was about defining the CFM is was just about the usage of GMPLS to = enable it.



From your comment I see that you’re not happy with the fact the ID is so = technology specific am I right?  

 

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 = Precisely; its gluing CFM to RSVP-TE/GMPLS as a transport. 



If yes do you agree with the fact that could be useful in general to use the same signaling ‘session’ to set-up the LSP and to enable the = CFM?

 

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 = No, I do not agree.  Again, if CFM is to be set-up e2e, let the IEEE = define this. Leave GMPLS to CCAMP.

[DC] I think that we have a total agreement on this, = no one is saying that CCAMP has to define the or re-define the CFM as no one = redefined g707 or other SDH ITU-T spec when we developed GMPLS for = SONET/SDH.

 

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 = --Tom

 

 



 Best = Regards


Diego

 

 

 

On Dec 4, 2007, at 1:51 PM, = Attila Takacs = wrote:




Hi Thomas,

 

Thank you for the = comments!

Please see answers = inline.

 

Best regards,
Attila

 

From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 = 2:58 PM
To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Cc: Attila Takacs; balazs.gero@ericsson.com
= Subject: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth= -oam-ext-00.txt

 

 

After reading this draft, I have = some questions/comments.

 

1) Overall, I am concerned = that the definition of a new TLV and these procedures = represent 

what amounts to a laying = violation and ask that the ADs take a look at = this

approach closely. This is similar = to the now-rejected approach that was = proposed

in the l2vpn WG about munging CFM = + PWs.  To my reading, this is = essentially

the same thing. If you want to = run CFM, run it natively over the ethernet interfaces = and

have no regard for the underlying = topology (GMPLS, PWs, etc...) otherwise = you 

will be creating a mess for implementations and interoperability.  

The application of the draft = is exactly for what you are calling out: when CFM is run natively over the Ethernet interfaces. The document focuses on GELS and Ethernet = LSPs. That is, to establish CFM entities for GMPLS controlled Ethernet LSPs. Hence, I think there is no layer violation = issue.

 

     &nbs= p;    This solution specifically = only works for GMPLS ethernet LSPs, right?  

What do I do if I want to set up = MPLS ethernet LSPs (i.e.: PWs) and do CFM over those? = Oh,

that is a different solution, = right?  Then what do I do if I want to run CFM over some new type = of

ethernet LSP in the future? More = protocol hacks?  The point is to use CFM over an ethernet = interface

without the underlying layers = knowing. This is good networking architecture design, that = simplifies

implementations and makes them = more robust, as well as makes using them operationally = much

easier. 

2) The introductory sections = in this draft give a lot of discussion about fast fault detection. = I

am puzzled by this given that = GMPLS networks tend to run over quickly = self-healing

optical infrastructures. Is it therefore truly necessary to motivate this work = by

requiring fast = CFMs?

It is right that frequent CCMs are = not required if the layers below Ethernet handle protection. However, the ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs where Ethernet is not just a single hop above a transport LSP. In this case Ethernet layer = (for clarity GELS) may provide protection for Ethernet LSPs. In any = case,  the whole point of the ID is to allow for the appropriate configuration = of CFM for Ethernet LSPs with GMPLS.

 

3) This document does not cover = E-LMI. Why not?

E-LMI is run over the MEF UNI. = The ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs within a network.

 

 

For = the purposes of this document, we only discuss Ethernet = OAM

   = [IEEE-CFM] aspects that are relevant for the connectivity = monitoring

   = of bidirectional point-to-point PBB-TE connections. =  

 <= /u1:p>

4) Is this = the right place to define this document or should this be done in = GELS?

Well, GELS is done in CCAMP...this = seems to be the right place.

 

 <= /u1:p>

5)   In = section 2 you make the following statement:

 <= /u1:p>

2.  = GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions

 =

    To simplify the = configuration of connectivity monitoring, when an

   = Ethernet LSP is signalled the associated MEPs should be = automatically

    established.  = Further more, GMPLS signalling should be able to

  e= nable/disable connectivity monitoring of a particular Ethernet = LSP.

 <= /u1:p>

 <= /u1:p>

To my point = in #1 above, you should use the native CFM functionality over the ethernet = interface and signal

those = capabilities to the bridges at both ends using the IEEE CFM signaling procedures (when = and if they

are = created).  If you want to test the underlying GMPLS LSP(s), then you should = use some

other = mechanism defined for that layer such as the work stated = in draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt

See the note to your point #1. = There is no relation to the gmpls-LSP-ping = draft. 

 

     &nbs= p;    The point I am making is that = perhaps it should.

 

     &nbs= p;    --Tom

 

 

 =

 <= /u1:p>

 <= /u1:p>

 

 

------_=_NextPart_001_01C8375F.41AC3A97-- Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 16:30:23 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C8375B.C5166677" Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 17:27:44 +0100 Message-ID: <0428AC48A879ED46A94F39D5665DF684DF2F9A@esealmw110.eemea.ericsson.se> Thread-Topic: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Thread-Index: Acg23NTxGvHAwYB1RMusTe1rH8zc1AABNqKAAAj7JuAAFW/IEA== From: "Diego Caviglia" To: , "Attila Takacs" , Cc: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C8375B.C5166677 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Neil, Yes I totally agree with your analysis. =20 The is not going to redefine or reinvent the OAM that, as Thomas as = pointed out, is done by IEEE, the ID just specify how to use a control = plane mechanism (GMPLS) set-up at the same time data plane circuit and = the related OAM. =20 Frankly specking I don't see any layer violation here. =20 BR =20 Diego =20 ________________________________ From: neil.2.harrison@bt.com [mailto:neil.2.harrison@bt.com]=20 Sent: marted=EC 4 dicembre 2007 22.55 To: Attila Takacs; tnadeau@lucidvision.com; Diego Caviglia Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt =20 I'm puzzled. I read the draft and thought it was excellent. It is = addressing an important operational issue, ie a critical operational OAM = requirement is to ensure that whatever mechanism (MP or CP) is used to = set-up/tear-down a connection (so this only applies to co-cs or co-ps = modes....the cl-ps mode does not have connections of course) is = harmonised to the activation/deactivation of the OAM.....specifically a = CV/CC flow. If we don't ensure this then there will be obvious = operational problems. This is essentially what the draft is about. =20 Further, GMPLS is a generic OOB CP technique.....it is not a specific = layer network technology per se (but it is specific in it's choice of = signalling and routing components). So one can apply a largely similar = (GMPLS) CP technique to all co-cs mode technologies (whether they are = partitioning a space, freq or time resource - see Note) and co-ps mode = technologies (which only applies to partitioning a time resource - see = Note) on the assumption that the technology is correctly architected in = the DP for the mode considered. It's pretty hard not to correctly = architect the co-cs mode, but it's quite easy to incorrectly architect = the co-ps mode, eg one can't violate the rules of a connection in the = co-cs mode but one can in the co-ps mode. =20 Note - When we partition a time resource in regular time-slices we = create a co-cs mode layer network. When we partition a time resource in = irregular time-slices we create a co-ps mode layer network. More = information on labelling and resource partitioning can be found in the = work on unified modelling (of networks) in G.800. =20 regards, Neil -----Original Message----- From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On = Behalf Of Attila Takacs Sent: 05 December 2007 02:03 To: Thomas Nadeau; Diego Caviglia Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Hi Tom, please see inline. Best regards, Attila =20 =09 ________________________________ From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com]=20 Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 2:19 AM To: Diego Caviglia Cc: Attila Takacs; ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt =20 On Dec 4, 2007, at 7:33 PM, Diego Caviglia wrote: =09 =09 =09 =09 Hi Thomas, My understanding of the ID was that RSVP-TE can be = used to 'piggyback' CFM set-up, otherwise the scenario is: usage of = RSVP-TE to set-up the LSP and NMS (meaning everything that is not = control plane) to enable to CFM for the LSP. =20 As I understand it, the IEEE is working on set-up of CFM (and MEPs), = as are some vendors I know. *) This to me seems like the right way to do this. =20 IEEE specified CFM and MIBs to setup CFM.=20 Diego's summary is correct: one can use an NMS or a control plane to = setup the data plane. In this case we propose to use GMPLS to setup the = data plane: both forwarding + OAM. =09 =09 From your comment I see that you're not happy with the fact the ID is = so technology specific am I right? =20 =20 Precisely; its gluing CFM to RSVP-TE/GMPLS as a transport.=20 I do not see your point with gluing. What do you mean by "as = transport"? GMPLS is just controlling OAM, CFM is run solely in the data = plane. =20 =20 =09 =09 If yes do you agree with the fact that could be useful in general to = use the same signaling 'session' to set-up the LSP and to enable the = CFM? =20 No, I do not agree. Again, if CFM is to be set-up e2e, let the IEEE = define this. Leave GMPLS to CCAMP. =20 =20 Sorry, I cannot follow. =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 --Tom =20 =20 =09 =09 =09 =09 Best Regards =09 Diego =09 =09 ________________________________ From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On = Behalf Of Thomas Nadeau Sent: marted=EC 4 dicembre 2007 11.30 To: Attila Takacs Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt On Dec 4, 2007, at 1:51 PM, Attila Takacs wrote: =09 =09 =09 =09 Hi Thomas, Thank you for the comments! Please see answers inline. Best regards, Attila =09 =09 ________________________________ From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com]=20 Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 2:58 PM To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Cc: Attila Takacs; balazs.gero@ericsson.com Subject: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt After reading this draft, I have some questions/comments. 1) Overall, I am concerned that the definition of a new TLV and these = procedures represent=20 what amounts to a laying violation and ask that the ADs take a look = at this approach closely. This is similar to the now-rejected approach that = was proposed in the l2vpn WG about munging CFM + PWs. To my reading, this is = essentially the same thing. If you want to run CFM, run it natively over the = ethernet interfaces and have no regard for the underlying topology (GMPLS, PWs, etc...) = otherwise you=20 will be creating a mess for implementations and interoperability. =20 The application of the draft is exactly for what you are calling out: = when CFM is run natively over the Ethernet interfaces. The document = focuses on GELS and Ethernet LSPs. That is, to establish CFM entities = for GMPLS controlled Ethernet LSPs. Hence, I think there is no layer = violation issue. This solution specifically only works for GMPLS ethernet = LSPs, right? =20 What do I do if I want to set up MPLS ethernet LSPs (i.e.: PWs) and do = CFM over those? Oh, that is a different solution, right? Then what do I do if I want to = run CFM over some new type of ethernet LSP in the future? More protocol hacks? The point is to use = CFM over an ethernet interface without the underlying layers knowing. This is good networking = architecture design, that simplifies implementations and makes them more robust, as well as makes using = them operationally much easier.=20 2) The introductory sections in this draft give a lot of discussion = about fast fault detection. I am puzzled by this given that GMPLS networks tend to run over = quickly self-healing optical infrastructures. Is it therefore truly necessary to motivate = this work by requiring fast CFMs? It is right that frequent CCMs are not required if the layers below = Ethernet handle protection. However, the ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs = where Ethernet is not just a single hop above a transport LSP. In this = case Ethernet layer (for clarity GELS) may provide protection for = Ethernet LSPs. In any case, the whole point of the ID is to allow for = the appropriate configuration of CFM for Ethernet LSPs with GMPLS. 3) This document does not cover E-LMI. Why not? E-LMI is run over the MEF UNI. The ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs within = a network. For the purposes of this document, we only discuss Ethernet OAM [IEEE-CFM] aspects that are relevant for the connectivity = monitoring of bidirectional point-to-point PBB-TE connections. =20 4) Is this the right place to define this document or should this be = done in GELS? Well, GELS is done in CCAMP...this seems to be the right place. 5) In section 2 you make the following statement: 2. GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions To simplify the configuration of connectivity monitoring, when = an Ethernet LSP is signalled the associated MEPs should be = automatically established. Further more, GMPLS signalling should be able to enable/disable connectivity monitoring of a particular Ethernet = LSP. To my point in #1 above, you should use the native CFM functionality = over the ethernet interface and signal those capabilities to the bridges at both ends using the IEEE CFM = signaling procedures (when and if they are created). If you want to test the underlying GMPLS LSP(s), then = you should use some other mechanism defined for that layer such as the work stated in = draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt See the note to your point #1. There is no relation to the = gmpls-LSP-ping draft.=20 The point I am making is that perhaps it should. --Tom =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C8375B.C5166677 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message

Hi = Neil,

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 Yes = I totally agree with your analysis.

 

The is not going to redefine or = reinvent the OAM that, as Thomas as pointed out, is done by IEEE, the ID just = specify how to use a control plane mechanism (GMPLS) set-up at the same time data = plane circuit and the related OAM.

 

Frankly specking I don’t see = any layer violation here.

 

BR

 

Diego

 

From: neil.2.harrison@bt.com [mailto:neil.2.harrison@bt.com]
Sent: marted=EC 4 = dicembre 2007 22.55
To: Attila Takacs; tnadeau@lucidvision.com; Diego Caviglia
Cc: = ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

 

I'm puzzled.  I read the draft and thought it was excellent.  It = is addressing an important operational issue, ie a critical operational OAM requirement is to ensure that whatever mechanism (MP or CP) is used to set-up/tear-down a connection (so this only applies to co-cs or co-ps modes....the cl-ps mode does not have connections of course) is = harmonised to the activation/deactivation of the OAM.....specifically a CV/CC flow.   If we don't ensure this then there will be obvious operational problems.  This is essentially what the draft is = about.

 

Further, GMPLS is a generic OOB CP technique.....it is not a specific = layer network technology per se (but it is specific in it's choice of = signalling and routing components).  So one can apply a largely similar (GMPLS) CP technique to all co-cs mode technologies (whether they are partitioning = a space, freq or time resource - see Note) and co-ps mode = technologies (which only applies to partitioning a time resource - see Note) on the assumption that the technology is correctly architected in the DP for = the mode considered.  It's pretty hard not to correctly architect the = co-cs mode, but it's quite easy to incorrectly architect the co-ps mode, eg = one can't violate the rules of a connection in the co-cs mode but one can in the = co-ps mode.

 

Note = - When we partition a time resource in regular time-slices we create a co-cs = mode layer network.  When we partition a time resource in irregular = time-slices we create a co-ps mode layer network.  More information on = labelling and resource partitioning can be found in the work on unified modelling (of networks) in G.800.

 

regards, Neil

-----Original = Message-----
From: = owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On = Behalf Of Attila = Takacs
Sent: 05 December 2007 = 02:03
To: Thomas Nadeau; Diego = Caviglia
Cc: = ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

Hi = Tom,

please see = inline.

Best = regards,

Attila

 

From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December = 05, 2007 2:19 AM
To: Diego Caviglia
Cc: Attila Takacs; ccamp@ops.ietf.org; = balazs.gero@ericsson.com
Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

 

On Dec 4, 2007, at 7:33 PM, Diego Caviglia = wrote:



Hi = Thomas,

      =            My understanding of the ID was that RSVP-TE can be used to = ‘piggyback’ CFM set-up, otherwise the scenario is: usage of RSVP-TE to set-up the = LSP and NMS (meaning everything that is not control plane) to enable to CFM for = the LSP.

 

As I understand it, the IEEE is working on set-up of CFM (and = MEPs), as are some vendors I know. *)

This to me seems like the right way to do = this.

 

IEEE specified CFM and MIBs to = setup CFM. 

Diego's summary is correct: one can = use an NMS or a control plane to setup the data plane. In this case we = propose to use GMPLS to setup the data plane: both forwarding + = OAM.

From your comment I see that you’re not happy with the fact the ID is so = technology specific am I right?  

 

Precisely; its gluing CFM to RSVP-TE/GMPLS as a = transport. 

I do not see your point with = gluing. What do you mean by "as transport"? GMPLS is just controlling OAM, = CFM is run solely in the data plane.

 

 

If yes do you agree with the fact that could be useful in general to use the same signaling ‘session’ to set-up the LSP and to enable the = CFM?

 

No, I do not agree.  Again, if CFM is to be set-up e2e, let = the IEEE define this. Leave GMPLS to CCAMP.

 

 

Sorry, I cannot = follow.

 

 

 

 

 

--Tom

 

 



 Best = Regards


Diego

On Dec 4, = 2007, at 1:51 PM, Attila Takacs = wrote:




Hi Thomas,

Thank you for the = comments!

Please see answers = inline.

Best regards,
Attila

From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 = 2:58 PM
To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Cc: Attila Takacs; balazs.gero@ericsson.com
= Subject: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth= -oam-ext-00.txt

After = reading this draft, I have some = questions/comments.

1) Overall, I am = concerned that the definition of a new TLV and these procedures = represent 

what amounts to a laying = violation and ask that the ADs take a look at this

approach closely. This is similar = to the now-rejected approach that was = proposed

in the l2vpn WG about munging CFM = + PWs.  To my reading, this is = essentially

the same thing. If you want to = run CFM, run it natively over the ethernet interfaces = and

have no regard for the underlying = topology (GMPLS, PWs, etc...) otherwise = you 

will be creating a mess for implementations and interoperability.  

The application of the draft = is exactly for what you are calling out: when CFM is run natively over the Ethernet interfaces. The document focuses on GELS and Ethernet = LSPs. That is, to establish CFM entities for GMPLS controlled Ethernet LSPs. Hence, I think there is no layer violation = issue.

     &nbs= p;    This solution specifically = only works for GMPLS ethernet LSPs, right?  

What do I do if I want to set up = MPLS ethernet LSPs (i.e.: PWs) and do CFM over those? = Oh,

that is a different solution, = right?  Then what do I do if I want to run CFM over some new type = of

ethernet LSP in the future? More = protocol hacks?  The point is to use CFM over an ethernet = interface

without the underlying layers = knowing. This is good networking architecture design, that = simplifies

implementations and makes them = more robust, as well as makes using them operationally = much

easier. 

2) The introductory sections = in this draft give a lot of discussion about fast fault detection. = I

am puzzled by this given that = GMPLS networks tend to run over quickly = self-healing

optical infrastructures. Is it therefore truly necessary to motivate this work = by

requiring fast = CFMs?

It is right that frequent CCMs are = not required if the layers below Ethernet handle protection. However, the ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs where Ethernet is not just a single hop above a transport LSP. In this case Ethernet layer = (for clarity GELS) may provide protection for Ethernet LSPs. In any = case,  the whole point of the ID is to allow for the appropriate configuration = of CFM for Ethernet LSPs with GMPLS.

3) This document does = not cover E-LMI. Why not?

E-LMI is run over the MEF UNI. = The ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs within a network.

For the purposes of this document, we only discuss Ethernet = OAM

   [IEEE-CFM] aspects that are relevant for the connectivity = monitoring

   = of bidirectional point-to-point PBB-TE connections. =  

4)= Is this the right place to define this document or should this be done in = GELS?

Well, GELS is done in CCAMP...this = seems to be the right place.

5)   In section 2 you make the following = statement:

2.=   GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions

&n= bsp;   To simplify the = configuration of connectivity monitoring, when an

   = Ethernet LSP is signalled the associated MEPs should be = automatically

    established.  = Further more, GMPLS signalling should be able to

  e= nable/disable connectivity monitoring of a particular Ethernet = LSP.

To my point in #1 above, you should use the native CFM functionality over = the ethernet interface and signal

those = capabilities to the bridges at both ends using the IEEE CFM signaling procedures (when = and if they

are = created).  If you want to test the underlying GMPLS LSP(s), then you should = use some

other = mechanism defined for that layer such as the work stated = in draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt

See the note to your point #1. = There is no relation to the gmpls-LSP-ping = draft. 

     &nbs= p;    The point I am making is that = perhaps it should.

     &nbs= p;    --Tom

 

------_=_NextPart_001_01C8375B.C5166677-- Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 13:12:11 +0000 Cc: , "Otani Tomohiro" Message-Id: <0230F537-A4C8-4131-BF40-B357431ADCB9@lucidvision.com> From: Thomas Nadeau To: "Zafar Ali (zali)" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Subject: Re: draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 08:09:38 -0500 On Dec 5, 2007, at 5:33 AM, Zafar Ali (zali) wrote: > Hi Tom- > > Thanks for your review; please see comments in-line. > > Thanks > > Regards... Zafar > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 8:43 AM >> To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org >> Cc: Otani Tomohiro; Zafar Ali (zali) >> Subject: draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt >> >> >> I have some questions/comments about this draft. >> >> 0) The draft needs to be organized a bit better so that it is >> clear what you are trying to achieve. > > Sure we will spend efforts to clarify the text further. > >> For example, >> some of the introductory text is unclear as to whether >> or not you are verifying the control or data planes (or >> both). > > Data plane. Can you explain in the document how this works? That, how do intermediate nodes use LMP to check the data plane along the path. It seems to me for instance, that since you are using LMP, you are testing each "segment" of the optical path. This is certainly not end2end testing, so please be clear on this. Also the procedures for how this works need to be clear. Take a look at RFC4379 for examples of how they (we) specified this. The clearest form IMHO is to use pseudo-code/ algorithmic descriptions of all the steps. This way everyone can clearly see what is going on here. >> At least to my reading. >> >> 1) This solution seems tightly coupled between RFCs >> 4204 and 4379. >> Is it reasonable to assume that all implementations >> will support 4204? > > Yes, LMP is already widely implemented (for GMPLS) and already > provides > lots of GMPLS OAM solutions. I don't see any reason not to reuse it. > >> This also seems to beg the question >> of "are there too many moving parts here?" for this >> to ultimately work and interoperate between 2 vendors. >> > > No, I don't think so. Reusing existing protocol/ tool further helps > this > cause. See below. >> 2) Which packet formats are to be used in this >> approach? All I see >> are statements like "send Test messages", but >> no details of >> that. >> > > All encoding methods for TEST message that are defined in LMP > specification are assumed to be permissible. We can add a more > elaborate > text to state the same. Cool. I think the document needs far more details for others to implement/understand it for sure. >> 3) Can this approach guarantee that the data plane is checked >> completely, and if not, what percentage of coverage is >> given? >> > > Yes, it does guarantee data plane connectivity. We can chat more > off-line on this. OK. >> 4) In section 2.2, you stipulate: >> >> To limit the scope of LSP Verification to a >> particular LSP, LSP-id is used in LOCAL_LINK_ID or >> REMOTE_LINK_ID fields of the LMP message exchanges during >> verification. >> >> Something similar has been proposed as an addition to >> lsp ping for >> the multi-cast case. Please check into this to see if this is >> similar enough to reuse that object. >> > > Sure, we will look into this. > >> 5) Is the link verification actually sent over the LMP >> control channel or >> the actual data path? Your text is unclear on this: >> > > Control messages to setup link/ LSP verification, e.g., BeginVerify, > etc. are sent via control channel and "Test" message is sent in-band > of > LSP. Think of LSP as a TE link. This gets to my point about "too many moving parts". What concerns me about this is not the re-use of LMP per se; thats a good idea in the sense of code/protocol re-use; however, what worries me is one protocol stimulating actions in another like this. There are security implications here that need to be addressed. Also, how certain are you that the implementations of LMP out there will all behave the same way once you initiate the generation of these messages? >> To initiate the link verification >> procedure, the Ingress >> (Egress) node MUST send a BeginVerify message over a control >> channel with IP address of the destination (source) node of >> the LSP. To limit the scope of LSP Verification to a >> particular LSP, LSP-id is used in LOCAL_LINK_ID or >> REMOTE_LINK_ID fields of the LMP message exchanges during >> verification. If the LINK_ID field is zero, the verification >> can span multiple LSPs between the set of >> Ingress/Egress nodes >> involved in the verification process. The rest of the details >> for LSP verification follow the LMP link verification >> procedure [RFC4204]. >> >> RFC4204 states that the link verify messages are NOT to be sent >> over the control channel, > > You meant "Test" message is not sent over the control channel, right. > Yes, this is also the case of this draft. This needs to be clarified. >> and since you want to verify the >> data plane you should follow its rules for this: >> >> 12.5.6. Test Message (Msg Type = 10) >> >> The Test message is transmitted over the data link >> and is used to >> verify its physical connectivity. Unless explicitly >> stated, these >> messages MUST be transmitted over UDP like all other >> LMP messages. >> The format of the Test messages is as follows: >> >> ::= >> >> >> The above transmission order SHOULD be followed. >> >> Note that this message is sent over a data link and >> NOT over the >> control channel. The transport mechanism for the >> Test message is >> negotiated using the Verify Transport Mechanism field of the >> BEGIN_VERIFY object and the Verify Transport Response >> field of the >> BEGIN_VERIFY_ACK object (see Sections 13.8 and 13.9). >> >> >> 6) I suggest passing this document by the MPLS WG and >> the LSP ping co- authors >> to ensure that your desire to reuse that >> protocol will indeed >> work, and that if this is eventually adopted as >> a CCAMP work item >> that it not pass WG last call until the MPLS WG >> has reviewed it. >> > > Most certainly. We will send a private email to LSP Ping co-authors > and > MPLS WG Chairs (w/ CCAMP WG Chair cc'ed). Thanks. --Tom > > >> >> >> > Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 10:35:49 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 05:33:11 -0500 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt Thread-Index: Acg2e6FsYB0cNs4pQEmREDiLbfmfZAAcuWsA From: "Zafar Ali (zali)" To: "Thomas Nadeau" , Cc: "Otani Tomohiro" DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=5187; t=1196850805; x=1197714805; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim1001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=zali@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Zafar=20Ali=20(zali)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt=20 |Sender:=20 |To:=20=22Thomas=20Nadeau=22=20,=20; bh=euf/LgUWmBw8Ei+owC80+lglgzAG8EJU3E8YXzdXiDU=; b=VaWKs3oKSjcvzOXFtfVljXyhlVhM1l/VFIpWxIvFeu+GwHb4mfGSduFE+gg4+uh9lYTNZk7B vkbZBJSDcOvkhKTSbZ2A9QYCIDsJXt07uzfJdyLIEv1OWIfG4p5L5T+K; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1; header.From=zali@cisco.com; dkim=pass (s ig from cisco.com/rtpdkim1001 verified; ); Hi Tom-=20 Thanks for your review; please see comments in-line. =20 Thanks Regards... Zafar=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com]=20 > Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 8:43 AM > To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org > Cc: Otani Tomohiro; Zafar Ali (zali) > Subject: draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt=20 >=20 >=20 > I have some questions/comments about this draft. > =09 > 0) The draft needs to be organized a bit better so that it is > clear what you are trying to achieve. =20 Sure we will spend efforts to clarify the text further.=20 > For example, > some of the introductory text is unclear as to whether > or not you are verifying the control or data planes (or > both).=20 Data plane.=20 > At least to my reading. >=20 > 1) This solution seems tightly coupled between RFCs=20 > 4204 and 4379. > Is it reasonable to assume that all implementations > will support 4204? =20 Yes, LMP is already widely implemented (for GMPLS) and already provides lots of GMPLS OAM solutions. I don't see any reason not to reuse it.=20 > This also seems to beg the question > of "are there too many moving parts here?" for this > to ultimately work and interoperate between 2 vendors. >=20 No, I don't think so. Reusing existing protocol/ tool further helps this cause.=20 > 2) Which packet formats are to be used in this=20 > approach? All I see > are statements like "send Test messages", but=20 > no details of > that. >=20 All encoding methods for TEST message that are defined in LMP specification are assumed to be permissible. We can add a more elaborate text to state the same.=20 > 3) Can this approach guarantee that the data plane is checked > completely, and if not, what percentage of coverage is > given? >=20 Yes, it does guarantee data plane connectivity. We can chat more off-line on this.=20 > 4) In section 2.2, you stipulate: >=20 > To limit the scope of LSP Verification to a > particular LSP, LSP-id is used in LOCAL_LINK_ID or > REMOTE_LINK_ID fields of the LMP message exchanges during > verification. >=20 > Something similar has been proposed as an addition to=20 > lsp ping for > the multi-cast case. Please check into this to see if this is > similar enough to reuse that object. >=20 Sure, we will look into this.=20 > 5) Is the link verification actually sent over the LMP=20 > control channel or > the actual data path? Your text is unclear on this: >=20 Control messages to setup link/ LSP verification, e.g., BeginVerify, etc. are sent via control channel and "Test" message is sent in-band of LSP. Think of LSP as a TE link.=20 > To initiate the link verification=20 > procedure, the Ingress > (Egress) node MUST send a BeginVerify message over a control > channel with IP address of the destination (source) node of > the LSP. To limit the scope of LSP Verification to a > particular LSP, LSP-id is used in LOCAL_LINK_ID or > REMOTE_LINK_ID fields of the LMP message exchanges during > verification. If the LINK_ID field is zero, the verification > can span multiple LSPs between the set of=20 > Ingress/Egress nodes > involved in the verification process. The rest of the details > for LSP verification follow the LMP link verification > procedure [RFC4204]. >=20 > RFC4204 states that the link verify messages are NOT to be sent > over the control channel,=20 You meant "Test" message is not sent over the control channel, right. Yes, this is also the case of this draft.=20 > and since you want to verify the > data plane you should follow its rules for this: >=20 > 12.5.6. Test Message (Msg Type =3D 10) >=20 > The Test message is transmitted over the data link=20 > and is used to > verify its physical connectivity. Unless explicitly=20 > stated, these > messages MUST be transmitted over UDP like all other=20 > LMP messages. > The format of the Test messages is as follows: >=20 > ::=3D =20 > >=20 > The above transmission order SHOULD be followed. >=20 > Note that this message is sent over a data link and=20 > NOT over the > control channel. The transport mechanism for the=20 > Test message is > negotiated using the Verify Transport Mechanism field of the > BEGIN_VERIFY object and the Verify Transport Response=20 > field of the > BEGIN_VERIFY_ACK object (see Sections 13.8 and 13.9). >=20 >=20 > 6) I suggest passing this document by the MPLS WG and=20 > the LSP ping co- authors > to ensure that your desire to reuse that=20 > protocol will indeed > work, and that if this is eventually adopted as=20 > a CCAMP work item > that it not pass WG last call until the MPLS WG=20 > has reviewed it. >=20 Most certainly. We will send a private email to LSP Ping co-authors and MPLS WG Chairs (w/ CCAMP WG Chair cc'ed).=20 > =09 >=20 >=20 Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 07:00:05 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C8370C.22930EF6" Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 06:55:15 -0000 Message-ID: <2ECAA42C79676B42AEBAC11229CA7D0C01880C37@E03MVB2-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net> Thread-Topic: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Thread-Index: Acg23NTxGvHAwYB1RMusTe1rH8zc1AABNqKAAAj7JuA= From: To: , , Cc: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C8370C.22930EF6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'm puzzled. I read the draft and thought it was excellent. It is = addressing an important operational issue, ie a critical operational OAM = requirement is to ensure that whatever mechanism (MP or CP) is used to = set-up/tear-down a connection (so this only applies to co-cs or co-ps = modes....the cl-ps mode does not have connections of course) is = harmonised to the activation/deactivation of the OAM.....specifically a = CV/CC flow. If we don't ensure this then there will be obvious = operational problems. This is essentially what the draft is about. =20 Further, GMPLS is a generic OOB CP technique.....it is not a specific = layer network technology per se (but it is specific in it's choice of = signalling and routing components). So one can apply a largely similar = (GMPLS) CP technique to all co-cs mode technologies (whether they are = partitioning a space, freq or time resource - see Note) and co-ps mode = technologies (which only applies to partitioning a time resource - see = Note) on the assumption that the technology is correctly architected in = the DP for the mode considered. It's pretty hard not to correctly = architect the co-cs mode, but it's quite easy to incorrectly architect = the co-ps mode, eg one can't violate the rules of a connection in the = co-cs mode but one can in the co-ps mode. =20 Note - When we partition a time resource in regular time-slices we = create a co-cs mode layer network. When we partition a time resource in = irregular time-slices we create a co-ps mode layer network. More = information on labelling and resource partitioning can be found in the = work on unified modelling (of networks) in G.800. =20 regards, Neil -----Original Message----- From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On = Behalf Of Attila Takacs Sent: 05 December 2007 02:03 To: Thomas Nadeau; Diego Caviglia Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Hi Tom, please see inline. Best regards, Attila _____ =20 From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com]=20 Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 2:19 AM To: Diego Caviglia Cc: Attila Takacs; ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt On Dec 4, 2007, at 7:33 PM, Diego Caviglia wrote: Hi Thomas, My understanding of the ID was that RSVP-TE can be used = to 'piggyback' CFM set-up, otherwise the scenario is: usage of RSVP-TE = to set-up the LSP and NMS (meaning everything that is not control plane) = to enable to CFM for the LSP. As I understand it, the IEEE is working on set-up of CFM (and MEPs), as = are some vendors I know. *) This to me seems like the right way to do this. =20 IEEE specified CFM and MIBs to setup CFM.=20 Diego's summary is correct: one can use an NMS or a control plane to = setup the data plane. In this case we propose to use GMPLS to setup the = data plane: both forwarding + OAM. >From your comment I see that you're not happy with the fact the ID is so = technology specific am I right? =20 Precisely; its gluing CFM to RSVP-TE/GMPLS as a transport.=20 I do not see your point with gluing. What do you mean by "as transport"? = GMPLS is just controlling OAM, CFM is run solely in the data plane. =20 If yes do you agree with the fact that could be useful in general to use = the same signaling 'session' to set-up the LSP and to enable the CFM? No, I do not agree. Again, if CFM is to be set-up e2e, let the IEEE = define this. Leave GMPLS to CCAMP. =20 =20 Sorry, I cannot follow. =20 =20 =20 =20 --Tom Best Regards Diego _____ =20 From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On = Behalf Of Thomas Nadeau Sent: marted=EC 4 dicembre 2007 11.30 To: Attila Takacs Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt On Dec 4, 2007, at 1:51 PM, Attila Takacs wrote: Hi Thomas, Thank you for the comments! Please see answers inline. Best regards, Attila _____ =20 From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com]=20 Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 2:58 PM To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Cc: Attila Takacs; balazs.gero@ericsson.com Subject: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt After reading this draft, I have some questions/comments. 1) Overall, I am concerned that the definition of a new TLV and these = procedures represent=20 what amounts to a laying violation and ask that the ADs take a look at = this approach closely. This is similar to the now-rejected approach that was = proposed in the l2vpn WG about munging CFM + PWs. To my reading, this is = essentially the same thing. If you want to run CFM, run it natively over the = ethernet interfaces and have no regard for the underlying topology (GMPLS, PWs, etc...) = otherwise you=20 will be creating a mess for implementations and interoperability. =20 The application of the draft is exactly for what you are calling out: = when CFM is run natively over the Ethernet interfaces. The document = focuses on GELS and Ethernet LSPs. That is, to establish CFM entities = for GMPLS controlled Ethernet LSPs. Hence, I think there is no layer = violation issue. This solution specifically only works for GMPLS ethernet LSPs, = right? =20 What do I do if I want to set up MPLS ethernet LSPs (i.e.: PWs) and do = CFM over those? Oh, that is a different solution, right? Then what do I do if I want to run = CFM over some new type of ethernet LSP in the future? More protocol hacks? The point is to use = CFM over an ethernet interface without the underlying layers knowing. This is good networking = architecture design, that simplifies implementations and makes them more robust, as well as makes using them = operationally much easier.=20 2) The introductory sections in this draft give a lot of discussion = about fast fault detection. I am puzzled by this given that GMPLS networks tend to run over quickly = self-healing optical infrastructures. Is it therefore truly necessary to motivate = this work by requiring fast CFMs? It is right that frequent CCMs are not required if the layers below = Ethernet handle protection. However, the ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs = where Ethernet is not just a single hop above a transport LSP. In this = case Ethernet layer (for clarity GELS) may provide protection for = Ethernet LSPs. In any case, the whole point of the ID is to allow for = the appropriate configuration of CFM for Ethernet LSPs with GMPLS. 3) This document does not cover E-LMI. Why not? E-LMI is run over the MEF UNI. The ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs within a = network. For the purposes of this document, we only discuss Ethernet OAM [IEEE-CFM] aspects that are relevant for the connectivity monitoring of bidirectional point-to-point PBB-TE connections. =20 4) Is this the right place to define this document or should this be = done in GELS? Well, GELS is done in CCAMP...this seems to be the right place. 5) In section 2 you make the following statement: 2. GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions To simplify the configuration of connectivity monitoring, when an Ethernet LSP is signalled the associated MEPs should be automatically established. Further more, GMPLS signalling should be able to enable/disable connectivity monitoring of a particular Ethernet LSP. To my point in #1 above, you should use the native CFM functionality = over the ethernet interface and signal those capabilities to the bridges at both ends using the IEEE CFM = signaling procedures (when and if they are created). If you want to test the underlying GMPLS LSP(s), then you = should use some other mechanism defined for that layer such as the work stated in = draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt See the note to your point #1. There is no relation to the = gmpls-LSP-ping draft.=20 The point I am making is that perhaps it should. --Tom ------_=_NextPart_001_01C8370C.22930EF6 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
I'm puzzled.  I read the draft and thought it was = excellent. =20 It is addressing an important operational issue, ie a critical = operational OAM=20 requirement is to ensure that whatever mechanism (MP or CP) is used to=20 set-up/tear-down a connection (so this only applies to co-cs or co-ps=20 modes....the cl-ps mode does not have connections of course) is = harmonised to=20 the activation/deactivation of the OAM.....specifically a CV/CC=20 flow.   If we don't ensure this then there will be obvious = operational=20 problems.  This is essentially what the draft is = about.
 
Further, GMPLS is a generic OOB CP technique.....it = is not a=20 specific layer network technology per se (but it is specific in it's = choice of=20 signalling and routing components).  So one can apply a largely = similar=20 (GMPLS) CP technique to all co-cs mode technologies (whether they are=20 partitioning a space, freq or time resource - see Note) and co-ps = mode=20 technologies (which only applies to partitioning a time resource - see = Note) on=20 the assumption that the technology is correctly architected in the DP = for the=20 mode considered.  It's pretty hard not to correctly architect = the=20 co-cs mode, but it's quite easy to incorrectly architect the co-ps mode, = eg one=20 can't violate the rules of a connection in the co-cs mode but one can in = the=20 co-ps mode.
 
Note - When we partition a time resource in regular time-slices = we create=20 a co-cs mode layer network.  When we partition a time resource in = irregular=20 time-slices we create a co-ps mode layer network.  More information = on=20 labelling and resource partitioning can be found in the work on unified=20 modelling (of networks) in G.800.
 
regards, Neil
-----Original Message-----
From:=20 owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On = Behalf Of=20 Attila Takacs
Sent: 05 December 2007 02:03
To: = Thomas=20 Nadeau; Diego Caviglia
Cc: = ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE:=20 draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

Hi=20 Tom,
please see inline.
Best=20 regards,
Attila

From: Thomas Nadeau=20 [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com]
Sent: Wednesday, = December 05,=20 2007 2:19 AM
To: Diego Caviglia
Cc: Attila = Takacs;=20 ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com
Subject: Re:=20 draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt


On Dec 4, 2007, at 7:33 PM, Diego Caviglia wrote:
Hi=20 Thomas,
           =      =20 My understanding of the ID was that RSVP-TE can be used to = ‘piggyback’ CFM=20 set-up, otherwise the scenario is: usage of RSVP-TE to set-up the = LSP and=20 NMS (meaning everything that is not control plane) to enable to = CFM for=20 the LSP.

As I = understand it, the=20 IEEE is working on set-up of CFM (and MEPs), as are some vendors I = know.=20 *)
This to me seems like the right way to do this.
 
IEEE=20 specified CFM and MIBs to setup CFM. 
Diego's summary is correct: one can use an NMS or a = control plane=20 to setup the data plane. In this case we propose to use GMPLS to = setup=20 the data plane: both forwarding + OAM.
From=20 your comment I see that you’re not happy with the fact the = ID is so=20 technology specific am I right?=20  
Precisely;=20 its gluing CFM to RSVP-TE/GMPLS as a transport. 
I do=20 not see your point with gluing. What do you mean by "as transport"? = GMPLS is=20 just controlling OAM, CFM is run solely in the data = plane.
 

If=20 yes do you agree with the fact that could be useful in general to = use the=20 same signaling ‘session’ to set-up the LSP and to = enable the=20 CFM?
No, I do not=20 agree.  Again, if CFM is to be set-up e2e, let the IEEE define = this.=20 Leave GMPLS to CCAMP.
 
 
Sorry, I cannot follow.
 
 
 
 
--Tom

 Best = Regards

Diego
From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org = [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org<= /A>] On Behalf Of Thomas=20 Nadeau
Sent: marted=EC 4 dicembre = 2007=20 11.30
To: Attila = Takacs
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com
= Subject: Re:=20 = draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt
On Dec 4,=20 2007, at 1:51 PM, Attila Takacs=20 wrote:


Hi=20 Thomas,
Thank=20 you for the comments!
Please = see=20 answers inline.
Best=20 regards,
Attila
From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, = 2007 2:58=20 PM
To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Cc: Attila Takacs; balazs.gero@ericsson.com
= Subject: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth= -oam-ext-00.txt
After=20 reading this draft, I have some=20 questions/comments.
1)=20 Overall, I am concerned that the definition of a new TLV = and these=20 procedures represent 
what amounts=20 to a laying violation and ask that the ADs take a look at=20 this
approach=20 closely. This is similar to the now-rejected approach that was=20 proposed
in the l2vpn=20 WG about munging CFM + PWs.  To my reading, this is=20 essentially
the same=20 thing. If you want to run CFM, run it natively over the ethernet = interfaces and
have no=20 regard for the underlying topology (GMPLS, PWs, etc...) = otherwise=20 you 
will be=20 creating a mess for implementations and=20 interoperability.  
The=20 application of the draft is exactly for what you are calling = out:=20 when CFM is run natively over the Ethernet interfaces. The = document=20 focuses on GELS and Ethernet LSPs. That is, to establish = CFM=20 entities for GMPLS controlled Ethernet LSPs. Hence, I think = there is=20 no layer violation = issue.
          This=20 solution specifically only works for GMPLS ethernet LSPs, right?=20  
What do I do=20 if I want to set up MPLS ethernet LSPs (i.e.: PWs) and do CFM = over=20 those? Oh,
that is a=20 different solution, right?  Then what do I do if I want to = run CFM=20 over some new type of
ethernet LSP=20 in the future? More protocol hacks?  The point is to use CFM = over an=20 ethernet interface
without the=20 underlying layers knowing. This is good networking architecture = design,=20 that simplifies
implementations and makes them more = robust, as=20 well as makes using them operationally=20 much
easier. 
2) The introductory sections in = this=20 draft give a lot of discussion about fast fault detection.=20 I
am puzzled=20 by this given that GMPLS networks tend to run over quickly=20 self-healing
optical=20 infrastructures. Is it therefore truly necessary to = motivate=20 this work by
requiring=20 fast CFMs?
It is = right=20 that frequent CCMs are not required if the layers below Ethernet = handle=20 protection. However, the ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs where = Ethernet=20 is not just a single hop above a transport = LSP. In this=20 case Ethernet layer (for clarity GELS) may provide = protection for=20 Ethernet LSPs. In any case,  the whole point of the ID = is to=20 allow for the appropriate configuration of CFM for Ethernet LSPs = with=20 GMPLS.
3) This=20 document does not cover E-LMI. Why=20 not?
E-LMI = is run=20 over the MEF UNI. The ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs within a=20 network.
For the purposes of this document, we = only=20 discuss Ethernet = OAM
   = [IEEE-CFM]=20 aspects that are relevant for the connectivity=20 monitoring
   = of=20 bidirectional point-to-point PBB-TE connections.=20  
4) Is this = the right=20 place to define this document or should this be done in=20 GELS?
Well, = GELS is=20 done in CCAMP...this seems to be the right=20 place.
5)   In = section 2=20 you make the following = statement:
2.  = GMPLS RSVP-TE=20 Extensions
    To = simplify the=20 configuration of connectivity monitoring, when=20 an
   = Ethernet=20 LSP is signalled the associated MEPs should be=20 automatically
   =20 established.  Further more, GMPLS signalling should be = able=20 to
  enable/disable=20 connectivity monitoring of a particular Ethernet=20 LSP.
To my point = in #1=20 above, you should use the native CFM functionality over the = ethernet=20 interface and signal
those = capabilities to=20 the bridges at both ends using the IEEE CFM signaling = procedures (when=20 and if they
are created). =  If=20 you want to test the underlying GMPLS LSP(s), then you should = use=20 some
other = mechanism defined=20 for that layer such as the work stated = in draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt=
See = the=20 note to your point #1. There is no relation to the=20 gmpls-LSP-ping draft. 
          The = point I=20 am making is that perhaps it should.
          --Tom
=
------_=_NextPart_001_01C8370C.22930EF6-- Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 02:04:43 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C836E3.05B15F17" Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 03:03:26 +0100 Message-ID: <53CCFDD6E346CB43994852666C210E9102624609@esealmw116.eemea.ericsson.se> Thread-Topic: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Thread-Index: Acg23NTxGvHAwYB1RMusTe1rH8zc1AABNqKA From: "Attila Takacs" To: "Thomas Nadeau" , "Diego Caviglia" Cc: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C836E3.05B15F17 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Tom, please see inline. Best regards, Attila ________________________________ From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com]=20 Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 2:19 AM To: Diego Caviglia Cc: Attila Takacs; ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt =09 =09 =09 =09 On Dec 4, 2007, at 7:33 PM, Diego Caviglia wrote: =09 Hi Thomas, My understanding of the ID was that RSVP-TE can be = used to 'piggyback' CFM set-up, otherwise the scenario is: usage of = RSVP-TE to set-up the LSP and NMS (meaning everything that is not = control plane) to enable to CFM for the LSP. =09 =09 As I understand it, the IEEE is working on set-up of CFM (and MEPs), as = are some vendors I know. *) This to me seems like the right way to do this. =20 IEEE specified CFM and MIBs to setup CFM.=20 Diego's summary is correct: one can use an NMS or a control plane to = setup the data plane. In this case we propose to use GMPLS to setup the = data plane: both forwarding + OAM. =09 =09 From your comment I see that you're not happy with the fact the ID is = so technology specific am I right? =20 =09 =09 Precisely; its gluing CFM to RSVP-TE/GMPLS as a transport.=20 =09 =09 I do not see your point with gluing. What do you mean by "as transport"? = GMPLS is just controlling OAM, CFM is run solely in the data plane. =20 =09 If yes do you agree with the fact that could be useful in general to = use the same signaling 'session' to set-up the LSP and to enable the = CFM? =09 =09 No, I do not agree. Again, if CFM is to be set-up e2e, let the IEEE = define this. Leave GMPLS to CCAMP. =09 =20 =20 Sorry, I cannot follow. =20 =20 =20 =20 =09 =09 --Tom =09 =09 =09 =09 =09 =09 =09 Best Regards =09 Diego =09 =09 ________________________________ From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On = Behalf Of Thomas Nadeau Sent: marted=EC 4 dicembre 2007 11.30 To: Attila Takacs Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt =09 =09 On Dec 4, 2007, at 1:51 PM, Attila Takacs wrote: =09 =09 =09 Hi Thomas, =09 Thank you for the comments! Please see answers inline. =09 Best regards, Attila =09 =09 ________________________________ From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com]=20 Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 2:58 PM To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Cc: Attila Takacs; balazs.gero@ericsson.com Subject: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt =09 =09 After reading this draft, I have some questions/comments. =09 1) Overall, I am concerned that the definition of a new TLV and these = procedures represent=20 what amounts to a laying violation and ask that the ADs take a look = at this approach closely. This is similar to the now-rejected approach that = was proposed in the l2vpn WG about munging CFM + PWs. To my reading, this is = essentially the same thing. If you want to run CFM, run it natively over the = ethernet interfaces and have no regard for the underlying topology (GMPLS, PWs, etc...) = otherwise you=20 will be creating a mess for implementations and interoperability. =20 The application of the draft is exactly for what you are calling out: = when CFM is run natively over the Ethernet interfaces. The document = focuses on GELS and Ethernet LSPs. That is, to establish CFM entities = for GMPLS controlled Ethernet LSPs. Hence, I think there is no layer = violation issue. =09 This solution specifically only works for GMPLS ethernet = LSPs, right? =20 What do I do if I want to set up MPLS ethernet LSPs (i.e.: PWs) and do = CFM over those? Oh, that is a different solution, right? Then what do I do if I want to = run CFM over some new type of ethernet LSP in the future? More protocol hacks? The point is to use = CFM over an ethernet interface without the underlying layers knowing. This is good networking = architecture design, that simplifies implementations and makes them more robust, as well as makes using = them operationally much easier.=20 2) The introductory sections in this draft give a lot of discussion = about fast fault detection. I am puzzled by this given that GMPLS networks tend to run over = quickly self-healing optical infrastructures. Is it therefore truly necessary to motivate = this work by requiring fast CFMs? It is right that frequent CCMs are not required if the layers below = Ethernet handle protection. However, the ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs = where Ethernet is not just a single hop above a transport LSP. In this = case Ethernet layer (for clarity GELS) may provide protection for = Ethernet LSPs. In any case, the whole point of the ID is to allow for = the appropriate configuration of CFM for Ethernet LSPs with GMPLS. =09 3) This document does not cover E-LMI. Why not? E-LMI is run over the MEF UNI. The ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs within = a network. =09 =09 For the purposes of this document, we only discuss Ethernet OAM [IEEE-CFM] aspects that are relevant for the connectivity = monitoring of bidirectional point-to-point PBB-TE connections. =20 =09 4) Is this the right place to define this document or should this be = done in GELS? Well, GELS is done in CCAMP...this seems to be the right place. =09 =09 5) In section 2 you make the following statement: =09 2. GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions =09 To simplify the configuration of connectivity monitoring, when = an Ethernet LSP is signalled the associated MEPs should be = automatically established. Further more, GMPLS signalling should be able to enable/disable connectivity monitoring of a particular Ethernet = LSP. =09 =09 To my point in #1 above, you should use the native CFM functionality = over the ethernet interface and signal those capabilities to the bridges at both ends using the IEEE CFM = signaling procedures (when and if they are created). If you want to test the underlying GMPLS LSP(s), then = you should use some other mechanism defined for that layer such as the work stated in = draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt See the note to your point #1. There is no relation to the = gmpls-LSP-ping draft.=20 =09 The point I am making is that perhaps it should. =09 --Tom =09 =09 =09 =09 =09 =09 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C836E3.05B15F17 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi=20 Tom,
please=20 see inline.
Best=20 regards,
Attila

From: Thomas Nadeau=20 [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December = 05, 2007=20 2:19 AM
To: Diego Caviglia
Cc: Attila Takacs;=20 ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com
Subject: Re:=20 draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt


On Dec 4, 2007, at 7:33 PM, Diego Caviglia wrote:
Hi=20 Thomas,
           =      =20 My understanding of the ID was that RSVP-TE can be used to = =91piggyback=92 CFM=20 set-up, otherwise the scenario is: usage of RSVP-TE to set-up the = LSP and=20 NMS (meaning everything that is not control plane) to enable to CFM = for the=20 LSP.

As I = understand it, the=20 IEEE is working on set-up of CFM (and MEPs), as are some vendors I = know.=20 *)
This to me seems like the right way to do this.
 
IEEE=20 specified CFM and MIBs to setup CFM. 
Diego's summary is correct: one can use an NMS or a = control plane to=20 setup the data plane. In this case we propose to use GMPLS to setup = the=20 data plane: both forwarding + OAM.
From=20 your comment I see that you=92re not happy with the fact the ID is = so=20 technology specific am I right? =  

Precisely; its=20 gluing CFM to RSVP-TE/GMPLS as a transport. 
I do=20 not see your point with gluing. What do you mean by "as transport"? = GMPLS is=20 just controlling OAM, CFM is run solely in the data = plane.
 

If=20 yes do you agree with the fact that could be useful in general to = use the=20 same signaling =91session=92 to set-up the LSP and to enable the=20 CFM?

No, I do not=20 agree.  Again, if CFM is to be set-up e2e, let the IEEE define = this.=20 Leave GMPLS to CCAMP.
 
 
Sorry,=20 I cannot follow.
 
 
 
 
--Tom

 Best=20 Regards

Diego
From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org = [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org<= /A>] On Behalf Of Thomas=20 Nadeau
Sent: marted=EC 4 dicembre 2007 = 11.30
To: Attila Takacs
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com
= Subject: Re:=20 = draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt
On = Dec 4, 2007,=20 at 1:51 PM, Attila Takacs = wrote:


Hi=20 Thomas,
Thank = you for=20 the comments!
Please = see answers=20 inline.
Best=20 regards,
Attila
From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, = 2007 2:58=20 PM
To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Cc: Attila Takacs; balazs.gero@ericsson.com
= Subject: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth= -oam-ext-00.txt
After reading=20 this draft, I have some=20 questions/comments.
1)=20 Overall, I am concerned that the definition of a new TLV and = these=20 procedures represent 
what amounts=20 to a laying violation and ask that the ADs take a look at=20 this
approach=20 closely. This is similar to the now-rejected approach that was=20 proposed
in the l2vpn=20 WG about munging CFM + PWs.  To my reading, this is=20 essentially
the same=20 thing. If you want to run CFM, run it natively over the ethernet=20 interfaces and
have no regard=20 for the underlying topology (GMPLS, PWs, etc...) otherwise=20 you 
will be=20 creating a mess for implementations and=20 interoperability.  
The=20 application of the draft is exactly for what you are calling = out: when=20 CFM is run natively over the Ethernet interfaces. The document = focuses on=20 GELS and Ethernet LSPs. That is, to establish CFM entities = for=20 GMPLS controlled Ethernet LSPs. Hence, I think there is no = layer=20 violation issue.
          This = solution=20 specifically only works for GMPLS ethernet LSPs, right?=20  
What do I do if=20 I want to set up MPLS ethernet LSPs (i.e.: PWs) and do CFM over = those?=20 Oh,
that is a=20 different solution, right?  Then what do I do if I want to run = CFM over=20 some new type of
ethernet LSP in=20 the future? More protocol hacks?  The point is to use CFM over = an=20 ethernet interface
without the=20 underlying layers knowing. This is good networking architecture = design, that=20 simplifies
implementations=20 and makes them more robust, as well as makes using them = operationally=20 much
easier. 
2) The=20 introductory sections in this draft give a lot of discussion = about fast=20 fault detection. I
am puzzled=20 by this given that GMPLS networks tend to run over quickly=20 self-healing
optical=20 infrastructures. Is it therefore truly necessary to = motivate=20 this work by
requiring=20 fast CFMs?
It is = right that=20 frequent CCMs are not required if the layers below Ethernet handle = protection. However, the ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs where = Ethernet=20 is not just a single hop above a transport LSP. In = this=20 case Ethernet layer (for clarity GELS) may provide protection = for=20 Ethernet LSPs. In any case,  the whole point of the ID = is to=20 allow for the appropriate configuration of CFM for Ethernet LSPs = with=20 GMPLS.
3) This=20 document does not cover E-LMI. Why=20 not?
E-LMI = is run over=20 the MEF UNI. The ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs within a=20 network.
For the purposes of this document, we = only=20 discuss Ethernet OAM
   = [IEEE-CFM]=20 aspects that are relevant for the connectivity=20 monitoring
   of = bidirectional point-to-point PBB-TE connections.=20  
4) Is this the = right=20 place to define this document or should this be done in=20 GELS?
Well, = GELS is=20 done in CCAMP...this seems to be the right=20 place.
5)   In = section 2=20 you make the following = statement:
2.  GMPLS = RSVP-TE=20 Extensions
    To = simplify the=20 configuration of connectivity monitoring, when=20 an
   = Ethernet LSP=20 is signalled the associated MEPs should be=20 automatically
   =20 established.  Further more, GMPLS signalling should be able = to
  enable/disable=20 connectivity monitoring of a particular Ethernet=20 LSP.
To my point in = #1 above,=20 you should use the native CFM functionality over the ethernet = interface=20 and signal
those = capabilities to the=20 bridges at both ends using the IEEE CFM signaling procedures = (when and=20 if they
are created). =  If=20 you want to test the underlying GMPLS LSP(s), then you should = use=20 some
other mechanism = defined=20 for that layer such as the work stated = in draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt=
See the = note to your point #1. There is no relation to the=20 gmpls-LSP-ping draft. 
          The = point I am=20 making is that perhaps it should.
          --Tom
=
------_=_NextPart_001_01C836E3.05B15F17-- Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 01:20:45 +0000 Cc: "Attila Takacs" , , Message-Id: <238388FD-E9A8-47B3-A52D-8DBFBDFE33DB@lucidvision.com> From: Thomas Nadeau To: "Diego Caviglia" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-28--532988434 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 20:19:03 -0500 --Apple-Mail-28--532988434 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Dec 4, 2007, at 7:33 PM, Diego Caviglia wrote: > Hi Thomas, > My understanding of the ID was that RSVP-TE can be =20= > used to =91piggyback=92 CFM set-up, otherwise the scenario is: usage = of =20 > RSVP-TE to set-up the LSP and NMS (meaning everything that is not =20 > control plane) to enable to CFM for the LSP. As I understand it, the IEEE is working on set-up of CFM (and = MEPs), =20 as are some vendors I know. *) This to me seems like the right way to do this. > =46rom your comment I see that you=92re not happy with the fact the ID = =20 > is so technology specific am I right? Precisely; its gluing CFM to RSVP-TE/GMPLS as a transport. > If yes do you agree with the fact that could be useful in general to =20= > use the same signaling =91session=92 to set-up the LSP and to enable = the =20 > CFM? No, I do not agree. Again, if CFM is to be set-up e2e, let the = IEEE =20 define this. Leave GMPLS to CCAMP. --Tom > Best Regards > > Diego > > From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On =20= > Behalf Of Thomas Nadeau > Sent: marted=EC 4 dicembre 2007 11.30 > To: Attila Takacs > Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com > Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt > > > On Dec 4, 2007, at 1:51 PM, Attila Takacs wrote: > > > Hi Thomas, > > Thank you for the comments! > Please see answers inline. > > Best regards, > Attila > > From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com] > Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 2:58 PM > To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org > Cc: Attila Takacs; balazs.gero@ericsson.com > Subject: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt > > > After reading this draft, I have some questions/comments. > > 1) Overall, I am concerned that the definition of a new TLV and =20 > these procedures represent > what amounts to a laying violation and ask that the ADs take a look =20= > at this > approach closely. This is similar to the now-rejected approach that =20= > was proposed > in the l2vpn WG about munging CFM + PWs. To my reading, this is =20 > essentially > the same thing. If you want to run CFM, run it natively over the =20 > ethernet interfaces and > have no regard for the underlying topology (GMPLS, PWs, etc...) =20 > otherwise you > will be creating a mess for implementations and interoperability. > The application of the draft is exactly for what you are calling =20 > out: when CFM is run natively over the Ethernet interfaces. The =20 > document focuses on GELS and Ethernet LSPs. That is, to establish =20 > CFM entities for GMPLS controlled Ethernet LSPs. Hence, I think =20 > there is no layer violation issue. > > This solution specifically only works for GMPLS ethernet =20 > LSPs, right? > What do I do if I want to set up MPLS ethernet LSPs (i.e.: PWs) and =20= > do CFM over those? Oh, > that is a different solution, right? Then what do I do if I want to =20= > run CFM over some new type of > ethernet LSP in the future? More protocol hacks? The point is to =20 > use CFM over an ethernet interface > without the underlying layers knowing. This is good networking =20 > architecture design, that simplifies > implementations and makes them more robust, as well as makes using =20 > them operationally much > easier. >> 2) The introductory sections in this draft give a lot of discussion =20= >> about fast fault detection. I >> am puzzled by this given that GMPLS networks tend to run over =20 >> quickly self-healing >> optical infrastructures. Is it therefore truly necessary to =20 >> motivate this work by >> requiring fast CFMs? >> It is right that frequent CCMs are not required if the layers below =20= >> Ethernet handle protection. However, the ID focuses on Ethernet =20 >> LSPs where Ethernet is not just a single hop above a transport LSP. =20= >> In this case Ethernet layer (for clarity GELS) may provide =20 >> protection for Ethernet LSPs. In any case, the whole point of the =20= >> ID is to allow for the appropriate configuration of CFM for =20 >> Ethernet LSPs with GMPLS. >> >> 3) This document does not cover E-LMI. Why not? >> E-LMI is run over the MEF UNI. The ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs =20 >> within a network. >> >> >> For the purposes of this document, we only discuss Ethernet OAM >> [IEEE-CFM] aspects that are relevant for the connectivity =20 >> monitoring >> of bidirectional point-to-point PBB-TE connections. >> >> 4) Is this the right place to define this document or should this =20 >> be done in GELS? >> Well, GELS is done in CCAMP...this seems to be the right place. >> >> >> 5) In section 2 you make the following statement: >> >> 2. GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions >> >> To simplify the configuration of connectivity monitoring, when an >> Ethernet LSP is signalled the associated MEPs should be =20 >> automatically >> established. Further more, GMPLS signalling should be able to >> enable/disable connectivity monitoring of a particular Ethernet =20 >> LSP. >> >> >> To my point in #1 above, you should use the native CFM =20 >> functionality over the ethernet interface and signal >> those capabilities to the bridges at both ends using the IEEE CFM =20 >> signaling procedures (when and if they >> are created). If you want to test the underlying GMPLS LSP(s), =20 >> then you should use some >> other mechanism defined for that layer such as the work stated in =20 >> draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt >> See the note to your point #1. There is no relation to the gmpls-=20 >> LSP-ping draft. > > The point I am making is that perhaps it should. > > --Tom > > >> >> >> > > --Apple-Mail-28--532988434 Content-Type: text/html; charset=WINDOWS-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Dec 4, 2007, = at 7:33 PM, Diego Caviglia wrote:

Hi = Thomas,
As I understand it, the IEEE is = working on set-up of CFM (and MEPs), as are some vendors I know. = *)
This to me seems like the right way to do = this.

=46rom your comment I see that you=92re = not happy with the fact the ID is so technology specific am I right? =  

= Precisely; its gluing CFM to RSVP-TE/GMPLS as a = transport. 

If yes do you = agree with the fact that could be useful in general to use the same = signaling =91session=92 to set-up the LSP and to enable the = CFM?

No, I do not agree.  Again, = if CFM is to be set-up e2e, let the IEEE define this. Leave GMPLS to = CCAMP.

= --Tom



Best = Regards

Diego
From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org = [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas = Nadeau
Sent: marted=EC 4 dicembre 2007 = 11.30
To: Attila Takacs
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com
Subject: Re: = draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt
 
On Dec 4, = 2007, at 1:51 PM, Attila Takacs = wrote:
Hi = Thomas,
Thank = you for the comments!
Please see = answers inline.
Best = regards,
Attila
 Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 = 2:58 PM
To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Cc: Attila Takacs; balazs.gero@ericsson.com
Subject: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-et= h-oam-ext-00.txt
After reading this draft, I have some = questions/comments.
1) Overall, I am concerned that the = definition of a new TLV and these procedures = represent 
what amounts to a laying violation and ask = that the ADs take a look at = this
approach = closely. This is similar to the now-rejected approach that was = proposed
in the l2vpn WG about munging CFM + PWs. =  To my reading, this is = essentially
the same thing. If you want to run CFM, run = it natively over the ethernet interfaces = and
have no = regard for the underlying topology (GMPLS, PWs, etc...) otherwise = you 
will be creating a mess for implementations = and interoperability. The = application of the draft is exactly for what you are calling out: = when CFM is run natively over the Ethernet interfaces. The document = focuses on GELS and Ethernet LSPs. That is, to establish CFM = entities for GMPLS controlled Ethernet LSPs. Hence, I think there = is no layer violation = issue.
 This = solution specifically only works for GMPLS ethernet LSPs, right? =  
What do I do if I want to = set up MPLS ethernet LSPs (i.e.: PWs) and do CFM over those? = Oh,
that is a = different solution, right?  Then what do I do if I want to run CFM = over some new type of
ethernet LSP in the future? More protocol = hacks?  The point is to use CFM over an ethernet = interface
without the underlying layers knowing. This = is good networking architecture design, that = simplifies
implementations and makes them more robust, = as well as makes using them operationally = much
2) The introductory sections in this = draft give a lot of discussion about fast fault detection. = I
am puzzled by = this given that GMPLS networks tend to run over quickly = self-healing
optical infrastructures. Is it = therefore truly necessary to motivate this work = by
requiring = fast CFMs?
It is right = that frequent CCMs are not required if the layers below Ethernet handle = protection. However, the ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs where Ethernet = is not just a single hop above a transport LSP. In this = case Ethernet layer (for clarity GELS) may provide protection for = Ethernet LSPs. In any case,  the whole point of the ID is to = allow for the appropriate configuration of CFM for Ethernet LSPs with = GMPLS.
3) This document does not = cover E-LMI. Why = not?
E-LMI is = run over the MEF UNI. The ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs within a = network.
For the purposes of this = document, we only discuss Ethernet = OAM
   [IEEE-CFM] aspects that are = relevant for the connectivity = monitoring
   of bidirectional = point-to-point PBB-TE connections. =  
 
4) Is this the right place to define this = document or should this be done in = GELS?
Well, GELS = is done in CCAMP...this seems to be the right = place.
5)   In section 2 you make the = following statement:
2.  GMPLS RSVP-TE = Extensions
    To simplify = the configuration of connectivity monitoring, when = an
   Ethernet LSP is signalled the associated MEPs = should be automatically
    = established.  Further more, GMPLS signalling should be able = to
  enable/disable connectivity monitoring of a = particular Ethernet LSP.
To my point in #1 above, you should use = the native CFM functionality over the ethernet interface and = signal
those capabilities to the bridges at both ends using the = IEEE CFM signaling procedures (when and if = they
are created).  If you want to test the underlying = GMPLS LSP(s), then you should use = some
other mechanism defined for that layer such as the work = stated in See the = note to your point #1. There is no relation to the = gmpls-LSP-ping draft. 
 The = point I am making is that perhaps it = should.
 --Tom
 
Thread-Topic: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Thread-Index: Acg2rlSmo3V62q2PQumJpMz52jLMPgAJwcxw From: "Diego Caviglia" To: "Thomas Nadeau" , "Attila Takacs" Cc: , This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C836D6.7D4FEF53 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Thomas, My understanding of the ID was that RSVP-TE can be used = to 'piggyback' CFM set-up, otherwise the scenario is: usage of RSVP-TE = to set-up the LSP and NMS (meaning everything that is not control plane) = to enable to CFM for the LSP. =20 >From your comment I see that you're not happy with the fact the ID is so = technology specific am I right? If yes do you agree with the fact that = could be useful in general to use the same signaling 'session' to set-up = the LSP and to enable the CFM? =20 Best Regards Diego =20 ________________________________ From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On = Behalf Of Thomas Nadeau Sent: marted=EC 4 dicembre 2007 11.30 To: Attila Takacs Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt =20 =20 On Dec 4, 2007, at 1:51 PM, Attila Takacs wrote: Hi Thomas, =20 Thank you for the comments! Please see answers inline. =20 Best regards, Attila =20 =09 ________________________________ From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com]=20 Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 2:58 PM To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Cc: Attila Takacs; balazs.gero@ericsson.com Subject: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt =20 =20 After reading this draft, I have some questions/comments. =20 1) Overall, I am concerned that the definition of a new TLV and these = procedures represent=20 what amounts to a laying violation and ask that the ADs take a look at = this approach closely. This is similar to the now-rejected approach that was = proposed in the l2vpn WG about munging CFM + PWs. To my reading, this is = essentially the same thing. If you want to run CFM, run it natively over the = ethernet interfaces and have no regard for the underlying topology (GMPLS, PWs, etc...) = otherwise you=20 will be creating a mess for implementations and interoperability. =20 The application of the draft is exactly for what you are calling out: = when CFM is run natively over the Ethernet interfaces. The document = focuses on GELS and Ethernet LSPs. That is, to establish CFM entities = for GMPLS controlled Ethernet LSPs. Hence, I think there is no layer = violation issue. =20 This solution specifically only works for GMPLS ethernet LSPs, = right? =20 What do I do if I want to set up MPLS ethernet LSPs (i.e.: PWs) and do = CFM over those? Oh, that is a different solution, right? Then what do I do if I want to run = CFM over some new type of ethernet LSP in the future? More protocol hacks? The point is to use = CFM over an ethernet interface without the underlying layers knowing. This is good networking = architecture design, that simplifies implementations and makes them more robust, as well as makes using them = operationally much easier.=20 2) The introductory sections in this draft give a lot of discussion = about fast fault detection. I am puzzled by this given that GMPLS networks tend to run over quickly = self-healing optical infrastructures. Is it therefore truly necessary to motivate = this work by requiring fast CFMs? It is right that frequent CCMs are not required if the layers below = Ethernet handle protection. However, the ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs = where Ethernet is not just a single hop above a transport LSP. In this = case Ethernet layer (for clarity GELS) may provide protection for = Ethernet LSPs. In any case, the whole point of the ID is to allow for = the appropriate configuration of CFM for Ethernet LSPs with GMPLS. =20 3) This document does not cover E-LMI. Why not? E-LMI is run over the MEF UNI. The ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs within a = network. =20 =20 For the purposes of this document, we only discuss Ethernet OAM [IEEE-CFM] aspects that are relevant for the connectivity = monitoring of bidirectional point-to-point PBB-TE connections. =20 =20 4) Is this the right place to define this document or should this be = done in GELS? Well, GELS is done in CCAMP...this seems to be the right place. =20 =20 5) In section 2 you make the following statement: =20 2. GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions =20 To simplify the configuration of connectivity monitoring, when an Ethernet LSP is signalled the associated MEPs should be = automatically established. Further more, GMPLS signalling should be able to enable/disable connectivity monitoring of a particular Ethernet LSP. =20 =20 To my point in #1 above, you should use the native CFM functionality = over the ethernet interface and signal those capabilities to the bridges at both ends using the IEEE CFM = signaling procedures (when and if they are created). If you want to test the underlying GMPLS LSP(s), then = you should use some other mechanism defined for that layer such as the work stated in = draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt See the note to your point #1. There is no relation to the = gmpls-LSP-ping draft.=20 =20 The point I am making is that perhaps it should. =20 --Tom =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C836D6.7D4FEF53 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi = Thomas,

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0 My understanding of the ID was that RSVP-TE can be used to ‘piggyback’ CFM set-up, otherwise the scenario is: usage of RSVP-TE to set-up the LSP and NMS = (meaning everything that is not control plane) to enable to CFM for the = LSP.

 

From your comment I see that = you’re not happy with the fact the ID is so technology specific am I right? = =A0If yes do you agree with the fact that could be useful in general to use the same = signaling ‘session’ to set-up the LSP and to enable the = CFM?

 

Best = Regards


Diego

 

From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Nadeau
Sent: marted=EC 4 = dicembre 2007 11.30
To: Attila Takacs
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; balazs.gero@ericsson.com
Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

 

 

On Dec 4, 2007, at 1:51 PM, Attila Takacs = wrote:



Hi = Thomas,

 

Thank you for the = comments!

Please see answers = inline.

 

Best regards,
Attila

 

From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December = 04, 2007 2:58 PM
To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Cc: Attila Takacs; balazs.gero@ericsson.com
= Subject: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

 

 

After reading this draft, I have some = questions/comments.

 

1) Overall, I am concerned that the definition of a new TLV = and these procedures represent 

what amounts to a laying violation and ask that the ADs take a = look at this

approach closely. This is similar to the now-rejected approach = that was proposed

in the l2vpn WG about munging CFM + PWs.  To my reading, = this is essentially

the same thing. If you want to run CFM, run it natively over the ethernet interfaces and

have no regard for the underlying topology (GMPLS, PWs, etc...) otherwise you 

will be creating a mess for implementations and = interoperability.  

The application of the draft = is exactly for what you are calling out: when CFM is run natively over the Ethernet interfaces. The document focuses on GELS and Ethernet = LSPs. That is, to establish CFM entities for GMPLS controlled Ethernet = LSPs. Hence, I think there is no layer violation issue.

 

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 = This solution specifically only works for GMPLS ethernet LSPs, right? =  

What do I do if I want to set up MPLS ethernet LSPs (i.e.: PWs) and do CFM over those? Oh,

that is a different solution, right?  Then what do I do if = I want to run CFM over some new type of

ethernet LSP in the future? More protocol hacks?  The point = is to use CFM over an ethernet interface

without the underlying layers knowing. This is good networking architecture design, that simplifies

implementations and makes them more robust, as well as makes = using them operationally much

easier. 

2) The introductory sections in this draft give a lot of discussion about fast fault detection. I

am puzzled by this given that GMPLS networks tend to run over = quickly self-healing

optical infrastructures. Is it = therefore truly necessary to motivate this work by

requiring fast CFMs?

It is right that frequent CCMs are = not required if the layers below Ethernet handle protection. However, the ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs where Ethernet is not just a single hop above a transport LSP. In this case Ethernet layer = (for clarity GELS) may provide protection for Ethernet LSPs. In any = case,  the whole point of the ID is to allow for the appropriate configuration = of CFM for Ethernet LSPs with GMPLS.

 

3) This document does not cover E-LMI. Why = not?

E-LMI is run over the MEF UNI. = The ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs within a network.

 

 

For the = purposes of this document, we only discuss Ethernet = OAM

   [IEEE-CFM] aspects that are relevant = for the connectivity monitoring

   of bidirectional point-to-point = PBB-TE connections.  

 

4) Is this the right place to define this = document or should this be done in GELS?

Well, GELS is done in CCAMP...this = seems to be the right place.

 

 

5)   In section 2 you make the following = statement:

 

2.  GMPLS RSVP-TE = Extensions

 

    = To simplify the configuration of connectivity monitoring, when = an

   Ethernet LSP is signalled the = associated MEPs should be automatically

    established.  Further more, GMPLS signalling should be able = to

  enable/disable connectivity = monitoring of a particular Ethernet LSP.

 

 

To my point in #1 above, you should use the = native CFM functionality over the ethernet interface and = signal

those capabilities to the bridges at both ends = using the IEEE CFM signaling procedures (when and if = they

are created).  If you want to test the = underlying GMPLS LSP(s), then you should use some

other mechanism defined for that layer such as = the work stated in draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt<= /span>=

See the note to your point #1. = There is no relation to the gmpls-LSP-ping = draft. =

 

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 = The point I am making is that perhaps it should.

 

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 = --Tom

 

 

 

 

 

 

------_=_NextPart_001_01C836D6.7D4FEF53-- Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 19:30:24 +0000 Cc: , Message-Id: <7BEFF760-FEC4-4E10-974F-21386B048B13@lucidvision.com> From: Thomas Nadeau To: "Attila Takacs" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-25--553931354 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 14:30:00 -0500 --Apple-Mail-25--553931354 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Dec 4, 2007, at 1:51 PM, Attila Takacs wrote: > Hi Thomas, > > Thank you for the comments! > Please see answers inline. > > Best regards, > Attila > > From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com] > Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 2:58 PM > To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org > Cc: Attila Takacs; balazs.gero@ericsson.com > Subject: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt > > > > After reading this draft, I have some questions/comments. > > 1) Overall, I am concerned that the definition of a new TLV and > these procedures represent > what amounts to a laying violation and ask that the ADs take a look > at this > approach closely. This is similar to the now-rejected approach that > was proposed > in the l2vpn WG about munging CFM + PWs. To my reading, this is > essentially > the same thing. If you want to run CFM, run it natively over the > ethernet interfaces and > have no regard for the underlying topology (GMPLS, PWs, etc...) > otherwise you > will be creating a mess for implementations and interoperability. > The application of the draft is exactly for what you are calling > out: when CFM is run natively over the Ethernet interfaces. The > document focuses on GELS and Ethernet LSPs. That is, to establish > CFM entities for GMPLS controlled Ethernet LSPs. Hence, I think > there is no layer violation issue. This solution specifically only works for GMPLS ethernet LSPs, right? What do I do if I want to set up MPLS ethernet LSPs (i.e.: PWs) and do CFM over those? Oh, that is a different solution, right? Then what do I do if I want to run CFM over some new type of ethernet LSP in the future? More protocol hacks? The point is to use CFM over an ethernet interface without the underlying layers knowing. This is good networking architecture design, that simplifies implementations and makes them more robust, as well as makes using them operationally much easier. > 2) The introductory sections in this draft give a lot of discussion > about fast fault detection. I > am puzzled by this given that GMPLS networks tend to run over > quickly self-healing > optical infrastructures. Is it therefore truly necessary to motivate > this work by > requiring fast CFMs? > It is right that frequent CCMs are not required if the layers below > Ethernet handle protection. However, the ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs > where Ethernet is not just a single hop above a transport LSP. In > this case Ethernet layer (for clarity GELS) may provide protection > for Ethernet LSPs. In any case, the whole point of the ID is to > allow for the appropriate configuration of CFM for Ethernet LSPs > with GMPLS. > > 3) This document does not cover E-LMI. Why not? > E-LMI is run over the MEF UNI. The ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs > within a network. > > > For the purposes of this document, we only discuss Ethernet OAM > [IEEE-CFM] aspects that are relevant for the connectivity > monitoring > of bidirectional point-to-point PBB-TE connections. > > 4) Is this the right place to define this document or should this be > done in GELS? > Well, GELS is done in CCAMP...this seems to be the right place. > > > 5) In section 2 you make the following statement: > > 2. GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions > > To simplify the configuration of connectivity monitoring, when an > Ethernet LSP is signalled the associated MEPs should be > automatically > established. Further more, GMPLS signalling should be able to > enable/disable connectivity monitoring of a particular Ethernet LSP. > > > To my point in #1 above, you should use the native CFM functionality > over the ethernet interface and signal > those capabilities to the bridges at both ends using the IEEE CFM > signaling procedures (when and if they > are created). If you want to test the underlying GMPLS LSP(s), then > you should use some > other mechanism defined for that layer such as the work stated in > draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt > See the note to your point #1. There is no relation to the gmpls-LSP- > ping draft. The point I am making is that perhaps it should. --Tom > > > --Apple-Mail-25--553931354 Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
What do I do if I = want to set up MPLS ethernet LSPs (i.e.: PWs) and do CFM over = those? Oh,
that is a different solution, right?  Then = what do I do if I want to run CFM over some new type = of
ethernet LSP in the future? More protocol hacks?  The = point is to use CFM over an ethernet interface
without the = underlying layers knowing. This is good networking architecture design, = that simplifies
implementations and makes them more robust, as = well as makes using them operationally = much
easier. 
On Dec 4, 2007, = at 1:51 PM, Attila Takacs wrote:

Hi Thomas,
 
Thank you for the comments!
=
Please see answers = inline.
 
=
Best = regards,
Attila

From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com= ]
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 2:58 PM
To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Cc: = Attila Takacs; balazs.gero@ericsson.com
<= b>Subject: = draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt

=


=
After reading this draft, I have some = questions/comments.
=

=
1) = Overall, I am concerned that the definition of a new TLV and = these procedures represent 
what amounts = to a laying violation and ask that the ADs take a look at this
approach = closely. This is similar to the now-rejected approach that was = proposed
in the l2vpn = WG about munging CFM + PWs.  To my reading, this is essentially
the same = thing. If you want to run CFM, run it natively over the ethernet = interfaces and
have no regard for the underlying = topology (GMPLS, PWs, etc...) otherwise you 
will be = creating a mess for implementations and interoperability.  
The = application of the draft is exactly for what you are calling out: = when CFM is run natively over the Ethernet interfaces. The document = focuses on GELS and Ethernet LSPs. That is, to establish CFM = entities for GMPLS controlled Ethernet LSPs. Hence, = I = think there is no layer violation = issue.

This solution specifically only = works for GMPLS ethernet LSPs, right?  
2) The introductory = sections in this draft give a lot of discussion about fast fault = detection. I
am puzzled by = this given that GMPLS networks tend to run over quickly = self-healing
optical = infrastructures. Is it therefore truly necessary to motivate = this work by
requiring = fast CFMs?
=
It is right that frequent CCMs are not = required if the layers below Ethernet handle protection. However, the ID = focuses on Ethernet LSPs where Ethernet is not just a single = hop above a transport LSP. In this case Ethernet layer = (for clarity GELS) may provide protection for Ethernet LSPs. In any = case,  the whole point of the ID is to allow for the appropriate = configuration of CFM for Ethernet LSPs with GMPLS.
=

3) This document does not cover = E-LMI. Why not?
E-LMI is run over the MEF UNI. The ID focuses on = Ethernet LSPs within a network.
 

=
For the purposes of = this document, we only discuss Ethernet OAM
   [IEEE-CFM] aspects that = are relevant for the connectivity monitoring
   of bidirectional = point-to-point PBB-TE connections.  

4) Is this the right place to define = this document or should this be done in GELS?
Well, GELS is done in CCAMP...this seems to be the right = place.
 

5)   In section 2 you make the = following statement:

2.  GMPLS RSVP-TE = Extensions

    To simplify the configuration of connectivity = monitoring, when an
   Ethernet LSP is signalled the associated MEPs = should be automatically
    established.  Further more, GMPLS signalling = should be able to
  enable/disable connectivity monitoring of a = particular Ethernet LSP.


To my point in #1 above, you should = use the native CFM functionality over the ethernet interface and = signal
those = capabilities to the bridges at both ends using the IEEE CFM signaling = procedures (when and if they
=
are created). =  If you want to test the underlying GMPLS LSP(s), then you should = use some
other = mechanism defined for that layer such as the work stated in draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt
See the note to your = point #1. There is no relation to the gmpls-LSP-ping = draft. 

The point = I am making is that perhaps it should.

--Tom



 
 

= --Apple-Mail-25--553931354-- Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 19:29:57 +0000 Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org, attila.takacs@ericsson.com, balazs.gero@ericsson.com Message-Id: <29EB99D8-42DC-4133-8AFA-DFD9D9FA928F@lucidvision.com> From: Thomas Nadeau To: Loa Andersson Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 14:28:54 -0500 On Dec 4, 2007, at 2:26 PM, Loa Andersson wrote: > Tom, > > Thomas Nadeau wrote: >> >> >> After reading this draft, I have some questions/comments. >> >> 1) Overall, I am concerned that the definition of a new TLV and >> these procedures represent >> what amounts to a laying violation > > did mean to say layering violation ??? Yep. Typing too fast! *) --Tom > > > /Loa > > and ask that the ADs take a >> look at this >> approach closely. This is similar to the now-rejected approach >> that was proposed >> in the l2vpn WG about munging CFM + PWs. To my reading, >> this is >> essentially >> the same thing. If you want to run CFM, run it natively over >> the >> ethernet interfaces and >> have no regard for the underlying topology (GMPLS, PWs, >> etc...) >> otherwise you >> will be creating a mess for implementations and >> interoperability. >> >> 2) The introductory sections in this draft give a lot of >> discussion >> about fast fault detection. I >> am puzzled by this given that GMPLS networks tend to run over >> quickly self-healing >> optical infrastructures. Is it therefore truly necessary to >> motivate this work by >> requiring fast CFMs? >> >> 3) This document does not cover E-LMI. Why not? >> >> For the purposes of this document, we only discuss Ethernet >> OAM >> [IEEE-CFM] aspects that are relevant for the connectivity >> monitoring >> of bidirectional point-to-point PBB-TE connections. >> >> 4) Is this the right place to define this document or should >> this be >> done in GELS? >> >> 5) In section 2 you make the following statement: >> >> 2. GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions >> >> To simplify the configuration of connectivity monitoring, >> when an >> Ethernet LSP is signalled the associated MEPs should be >> automatically >> established. Further more, GMPLS signalling should be >> able to >> enable/disable connectivity monitoring of a particular >> Ethernet LSP. >> >> >> To my point in #1 above, you should use the native CFM >> functionality over the ethernet interface and signal >> those capabilities to the bridges at both ends using the IEEE >> CFM signaling procedures (when and if they >> are created). If you want to test the underlying GMPLS >> LSP(s), >> then you should use some >> other mechanism defined for that layer such as the work stated >> in draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt >> >> > > > -- > Loa Andersson > > Principal Networking Architect > Acreo AB phone: +46 8 632 77 14 > Isafjordsgatan 22 mobile: +46 739 81 21 64 > Kista, Sweden email: loa.andersson@acreo.se > loa@pi.se > > This email was Anti Virus checked by Astaro Security Gateway. http://www.astaro.com > > Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 19:28:01 +0000 Message-ID: <4755A9DF.5060809@pi.se> Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 20:26:23 +0100 From: Loa Andersson Organization: Acreo AB User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Thomas Nadeau CC: ccamp@ops.ietf.org, attila.takacs@ericsson.com, balazs.gero@ericsson.com Subject: Re: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Tom, Thomas Nadeau wrote: > > > After reading this draft, I have some questions/comments. > > 1) Overall, I am concerned that the definition of a new TLV and > these procedures represent > what amounts to a laying violation did mean to say layering violation ??? /Loa and ask that the ADs take a > look at this > approach closely. This is similar to the now-rejected approach > that was proposed > in the l2vpn WG about munging CFM + PWs. To my reading, this is > essentially > the same thing. If you want to run CFM, run it natively over the > ethernet interfaces and > have no regard for the underlying topology (GMPLS, PWs, etc...) > otherwise you > will be creating a mess for implementations and interoperability. > > 2) The introductory sections in this draft give a lot of discussion > about fast fault detection. I > am puzzled by this given that GMPLS networks tend to run over > quickly self-healing > optical infrastructures. Is it therefore truly necessary to > motivate this work by > requiring fast CFMs? > > 3) This document does not cover E-LMI. Why not? > > For the purposes of this document, we only discuss Ethernet OAM > [IEEE-CFM] aspects that are relevant for the connectivity > monitoring > of bidirectional point-to-point PBB-TE connections. > > 4) Is this the right place to define this document or should this be > done in GELS? > > 5) In section 2 you make the following statement: > > 2. GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions > > To simplify the configuration of connectivity monitoring, > when an > Ethernet LSP is signalled the associated MEPs should be > automatically > established. Further more, GMPLS signalling should be able to > enable/disable connectivity monitoring of a particular > Ethernet LSP. > > > To my point in #1 above, you should use the native CFM > functionality over the ethernet interface and signal > those capabilities to the bridges at both ends using the IEEE > CFM signaling procedures (when and if they > are created). If you want to test the underlying GMPLS LSP(s), > then you should use some > other mechanism defined for that layer such as the work stated > in draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt > > -- Loa Andersson Principal Networking Architect Acreo AB phone: +46 8 632 77 14 Isafjordsgatan 22 mobile: +46 739 81 21 64 Kista, Sweden email: loa.andersson@acreo.se loa@pi.se This email was Anti Virus checked by Astaro Security Gateway. http://www.astaro.com Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 18:55:34 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C836A6.BD3C0438" Subject: RE: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 19:51:54 +0100 Message-ID: <53CCFDD6E346CB43994852666C210E9102624606@esealmw116.eemea.ericsson.se> Thread-Topic: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Thread-Index: Acg2fa9ERD84PXLlRIuBghgkPWaGDAAJD5Sg From: "Attila Takacs" To: "Thomas Nadeau" , Cc: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C836A6.BD3C0438 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Thomas, =20 Thank you for the comments! Please see answers inline. =20 Best regards, Attila ________________________________ From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com]=20 Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 2:58 PM To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Cc: Attila Takacs; balazs.gero@ericsson.com Subject: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt =09 =09 =09 =09 =09 =09 After reading this draft, I have some questions/comments. =09 =09 =09 1) Overall, I am concerned that the definition of a new TLV and these procedures represent=20 what amounts to a laying violation and ask that the ADs take a look at this =09 approach closely. This is similar to the now-rejected approach that was proposed =09 in the l2vpn WG about munging CFM + PWs. To my reading, this is essentially =09 the same thing. If you want to run CFM, run it natively over the ethernet interfaces and have no regard for the underlying topology (GMPLS, PWs, etc...) otherwise you=20 =09 will be creating a mess for implementations and interoperability. =20 The application of the draft is exactly for what you are calling out: when CFM is run natively over the Ethernet interfaces. The document focuses on GELS and Ethernet LSPs. That is, to establish CFM entities for GMPLS controlled Ethernet LSPs. Hence, I think there is no layer violation issue. 2) The introductory sections in this draft give a lot of discussion about fast fault detection. I =09 am puzzled by this given that GMPLS networks tend to run over quickly self-healing =09 optical infrastructures. Is it therefore truly necessary to motivate this work by =09 requiring fast CFMs? =09 It is right that frequent CCMs are not required if the layers below Ethernet handle protection. However, the ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs where Ethernet is not just a single hop above a transport LSP. In this case Ethernet layer (for clarity GELS) may provide protection for Ethernet LSPs. In any case, the whole point of the ID is to allow for the appropriate configuration of CFM for Ethernet LSPs with GMPLS. 3) This document does not cover E-LMI. Why not? =09 =09 E-LMI is run over the MEF UNI. The ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs within a network. =20 For the purposes of this document, we only discuss Ethernet OAM [IEEE-CFM] aspects that are relevant for the connectivity monitoring of bidirectional point-to-point PBB-TE connections. =20 =09 =09 4) Is this the right place to define this document or should this be done in GELS? =09 =09 Well, GELS is done in CCAMP...this seems to be the right place. =20 =09 =09 5) In section 2 you make the following statement: =09 =09 2. GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions =09 =09 To simplify the configuration of connectivity monitoring, when an Ethernet LSP is signalled the associated MEPs should be automatically established. Further more, GMPLS signalling should be able to enable/disable connectivity monitoring of a particular Ethernet LSP. =09 =09 =09 =09 To my point in #1 above, you should use the native CFM functionality over the ethernet interface and signal those capabilities to the bridges at both ends using the IEEE CFM signaling procedures (when and if they =09 are created). If you want to test the underlying GMPLS LSP(s), then you should use some other mechanism defined for that layer such as the work stated in draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt See the note to your point #1. There is no relation to the gmpls-LSP-ping draft.=20 =20 =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C836A6.BD3C0438 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi=20 Thomas,
 
Thank=20 you for the comments!
Please=20 see answers inline.
 
Best=20 regards,
Attila

From: Thomas Nadeau=20 [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December = 04, 2007=20 2:58 PM
To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Cc: Attila Takacs;=20 balazs.gero@ericsson.com
Subject:=20 draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt


After reading=20 this draft, I have some questions/comments.
1) = Overall, I am concerned that the definition of a new TLV and = these=20 procedures represent 
what amounts=20 to a laying violation and ask that the ADs take a look at this
approach=20 closely. This is similar to the now-rejected approach that was = proposed
in = the l2vpn=20 WG about munging CFM + PWs.  To my reading, this is = essentially
the same=20 thing. If you want to run CFM, run it natively over the ethernet = interfaces=20 and
have no regard=20 for the underlying topology (GMPLS, PWs, etc...) otherwise = you 
will be=20 creating a mess for implementations and interoperability.  
The=20 application of the draft is exactly for what you are calling out: = when CFM=20 is run natively over the Ethernet interfaces. The document focuses on = GELS and=20 Ethernet LSPs. That is, to establish CFM entities for GMPLS = controlled=20 Ethernet LSPs. Hence, I think = there is no=20 layer violation issue.

2) The=20 introductory sections in this draft give a lot of discussion about = fast fault=20 detection. I
am = puzzled by=20 this given that GMPLS networks tend to run over quickly = self-healing
optical=20 infrastructures. Is it therefore truly necessary to motivate = this=20 work by
requiring fast=20 CFMs?
It is=20 right that frequent CCMs are not required if the layers below Ethernet = handle=20 protection. However, the ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs where Ethernet = is not=20 just a single hop above a transport LSP. In this = case Ethernet=20 layer (for clarity GELS) may provide protection for Ethernet = LSPs. In any=20 case,  the whole point of the ID is to allow for the appropriate=20 configuration of CFM for Ethernet LSPs with GMPLS.

3) = This=20 document does not cover E-LMI. Why not?
E-LMI=20 is run over the MEF UNI. The ID focuses on Ethernet LSPs within a=20 network.
 

For the purposes of = this=20 document, we only discuss Ethernet OAM
   [IEEE-CFM] aspects that = are=20 relevant for the connectivity monitoring
   of bidirectional = point-to-point=20 PBB-TE connections.  

4) Is this the right place to define = this=20 document or should this be done in GELS?
Well, GELS is done in CCAMP...this seems to be the right=20 place.
 
5)   In section 2 you make the = following=20 statement:

2.  GMPLS RSVP-TE = Extensions

    To simplify the = configuration of=20 connectivity monitoring, when an
   Ethernet LSP is = signalled the=20 associated MEPs should be automatically
    established.  Further = more, GMPLS=20 signalling should be able to
  enable/disable = connectivity=20 monitoring of a particular Ethernet LSP.
To my point in #1 above, you should = use the=20 native CFM functionality over the ethernet interface and signal
those capabilities to the bridges at = both ends=20 using the IEEE CFM signaling procedures (when and if they
are created).  If you want to = test the=20 underlying GMPLS LSP(s), then you should use some
other mechanism defined for that = layer such as=20 the work stated in draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt
See the = note to=20 your point #1. There is no relation to the gmpls-LSP-ping=20 draft. 
 
 
------_=_NextPart_001_01C836A6.BD3C0438-- Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 13:58:37 +0000 Cc: attila.takacs@ericsson.com, balazs.gero@ericsson.com Message-Id: <82939598-D4E1-418F-B661-D6E5A7A4AB09@lucidvision.com> From: Thomas Nadeau To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-19--573868090 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Subject: draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 08:57:43 -0500 --Apple-Mail-19--573868090 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit After reading this draft, I have some questions/comments. 1) Overall, I am concerned that the definition of a new TLV and these procedures represent what amounts to a laying violation and ask that the ADs take a look at this approach closely. This is similar to the now-rejected approach that was proposed in the l2vpn WG about munging CFM + PWs. To my reading, this is essentially the same thing. If you want to run CFM, run it natively over the ethernet interfaces and have no regard for the underlying topology (GMPLS, PWs, etc...) otherwise you will be creating a mess for implementations and interoperability. 2) The introductory sections in this draft give a lot of discussion about fast fault detection. I am puzzled by this given that GMPLS networks tend to run over quickly self-healing optical infrastructures. Is it therefore truly necessary to motivate this work by requiring fast CFMs? 3) This document does not cover E-LMI. Why not? For the purposes of this document, we only discuss Ethernet OAM [IEEE-CFM] aspects that are relevant for the connectivity monitoring of bidirectional point-to-point PBB-TE connections. 4) Is this the right place to define this document or should this be done in GELS? 5) In section 2 you make the following statement: 2. GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions To simplify the configuration of connectivity monitoring, when an Ethernet LSP is signalled the associated MEPs should be automatically established. Further more, GMPLS signalling should be able to enable/disable connectivity monitoring of a particular Ethernet LSP. To my point in #1 above, you should use the native CFM functionality over the ethernet interface and signal those capabilities to the bridges at both ends using the IEEE CFM signaling procedures (when and if they are created). If you want to test the underlying GMPLS LSP(s), then you should use some other mechanism defined for that layer such as the work stated in draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt --Apple-Mail-19--573868090 Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

After = reading this draft, I have some questions/comments.

1) = Overall, I am concerned that the definition of a new TLV and these = procedures represent 
what amounts to a laying = violation and ask that the ADs take a look at this
= approach closely. This is similar to the now-rejected approach = that was proposed
= in the l2vpn WG about munging CFM + PWs.  To my reading, = this is essentially
= the same thing. If you want to run CFM, run it natively over the = ethernet interfaces and
have no regard for the = underlying topology (GMPLS, PWs, etc...) otherwise you 
= will be creating a mess for implementations and = interoperability. 

= 2) The introductory sections in this draft give a lot of = discussion about fast fault detection. I
= am puzzled by this given that GMPLS networks tend to run over = quickly self-healing
= optical infrastructures. Is it = therefore truly necessary to motivate this work by
= requiring fast CFMs?

3) This = document does not cover E-LMI. Why not?

= For = the purposes of this document, we only discuss Ethernet = OAM
   [IEEE-CFM] = aspects that are relevant for the connectivity monitoring
=    of bidirectional point-to-point PBB-TE connections. =  

= 4) Is this the right place to define this document or should this = be done in GELS?
5)   = In section 2 you make the following statement:
= 2.  GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions
    To = simplify the configuration of connectivity monitoring, when an
=    Ethernet LSP is signalled the associated MEPs should = be automatically
    = established.  Further more, GMPLS signalling should be able = to
=   enable/disable connectivity monitoring of a = particular Ethernet LSP.


To my point in #1 above, = you should use the native CFM functionality over the ethernet interface = and signal
those capabilities to the = bridges at both ends using the IEEE CFM signaling procedures (when and = if they
= are created).  If you want to test the underlying GMPLS = LSP(s), then you should use some
other mechanism defined = for that layer such as the work stated in  Message-Id: <1AF0E1E7-0264-4F61-A890-EE6BD4ADC1A9@lucidvision.com> From: Thomas Nadeau To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915) Subject: draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-LSP-ping-traceroute-00.txt Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 08:42:55 -0500 I have some questions/comments about this draft. 0) The draft needs to be organized a bit better so that it is clear what you are trying to achieve. For example, some of the introductory text is unclear as to whether or not you are verifying the control or data planes (or both). At least to my reading. 1) This solution seems tightly coupled between RFCs 4204 and 4379. Is it reasonable to assume that all implementations will support 4204? This also seems to beg the question of "are there too many moving parts here?" for this to ultimately work and interoperate between 2 vendors. 2) Which packet formats are to be used in this approach? All I see are statements like "send Test messages", but no details of that. 3) Can this approach guarantee that the data plane is checked completely, and if not, what percentage of coverage is given? 4) In section 2.2, you stipulate: To limit the scope of LSP Verification to a particular LSP, LSP-id is used in LOCAL_LINK_ID or REMOTE_LINK_ID fields of the LMP message exchanges during verification. Something similar has been proposed as an addition to lsp ping for the multi-cast case. Please check into this to see if this is similar enough to reuse that object. 5) Is the link verification actually sent over the LMP control channel or the actual data path? Your text is unclear on this: To initiate the link verification procedure, the Ingress (Egress) node MUST send a BeginVerify message over a control channel with IP address of the destination (source) node of the LSP. To limit the scope of LSP Verification to a particular LSP, LSP-id is used in LOCAL_LINK_ID or REMOTE_LINK_ID fields of the LMP message exchanges during verification. If the LINK_ID field is zero, the verification can span multiple LSPs between the set of Ingress/Egress nodes involved in the verification process. The rest of the details for LSP verification follow the LMP link verification procedure [RFC4204]. RFC4204 states that the link verify messages are NOT to be sent over the control channel, and since you want to verify the data plane you should follow its rules for this: 12.5.6. Test Message (Msg Type = 10) The Test message is transmitted over the data link and is used to verify its physical connectivity. Unless explicitly stated, these messages MUST be transmitted over UDP like all other LMP messages. The format of the Test messages is as follows: ::= The above transmission order SHOULD be followed. Note that this message is sent over a data link and NOT over the control channel. The transport mechanism for the Test message is negotiated using the Verify Transport Mechanism field of the BEGIN_VERIFY object and the Verify Transport Response field of the BEGIN_VERIFY_ACK object (see Sections 13.8 and 13.9). 6) I suggest passing this document by the MPLS WG and the LSP ping co- authors to ensure that your desire to reuse that protocol will indeed work, and that if this is eventually adopted as a CCAMP work item that it not pass WG last call until the MPLS WG has reviewed it. Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 03:56:55 +0000 Message-ID: <02b301c83629$48da8a60$bd148182@your029b8cecfe> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Subject: Fw: [mpls] working group early review ofdraft-ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-framework-01.txt Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 03:53:46 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi CCAMP, Please keep an eye on this work being done in the MPLS working group. It directly affects your protocol work. Thanks, Adrian ----- Original Message ----- From: "Loa Andersson" To: Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 12:46 AM Subject: [mpls] working group early review ofdraft-ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-framework-01.txt > Working Group, > > at the working group meeting today we agreed that it is time for > a *working group early review* of the > > draft-ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-framework-01.txt > > We want the working group participants to take the time to > carefully read and comment on the draft. > > Please send your comments to the working group mailing list. > > Loa and George > > -- > Loa Andersson > > Principal Networking Architect > Acreo AB phone: +46 8 632 77 14 > Isafjordsgatan 22 mobile: +46 739 81 21 64 > Kista, Sweden email: loa.andersson@acreo.se > loa@pi.se > > This email was Anti Virus checked by Astaro Security Gateway. > http://www.astaro.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > mpls mailing list > mpls@lists.ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls > Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 04:24:41 +0000 Reply-To: From: "Weiqiang Sun" To: "'Adrian Farrel'" , Cc: "'Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS'" Subject: RE: Slides on line Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 23:20:59 -0500 Organization: Shanghai Jiao Tong University Message-ID: <000901c83563$ef430380$cdc90a80$@edu.cn> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thread-Index: Acg1IQJecz518i1+TOaCMFWC8s6UAQAQWOfw Content-Language: zh-cn Hi Adrian, Would you please change the presenter of the lsp-ddpm draft scheduled last in the Thursday meeting? I will be presenting the draft this time. :) Thanks for your help and see you in Vancouver. Weiqiang Sun -----Original Message----- From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 2:56 PM To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Cc: Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS Subject: Slides on line Hi, A good number of slide sets are already on line. Go to the agenda at http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07dec/agenda/ccamp.htm and follow the links. Thanks to all who have made the effort to get their slides out early. Still looking for material for... Tuesday - Requirements for GMPLS Inter-Domain Routing (Tomohiro) - BGP Traffic Engineering Attribute (Yakov, Don, Hamid) - GMPLS Ethernet Label Switching Architecture and Framework (Don) - GMPLS control of Ethernet PBB-TE (Don) Thursday - ITU-T and OIF progress report (Lyndon) - ARP For GMPLS controlled PSC Ethernet Interfaces (Zafar) - OAM Requirements for GMPLS Networks (Tomohiro) - Ping and Traceroute for GMPLS LSPs in Non-Packet Switched Networks (Zafar) - GMPLS RSVP-TE Ethernet OAM Extensions (Attila) - VCAT/LCAS (Greg) - Lambda labels (Tomohiro) Apologies if you have already sent slides. Please e-kick me. Cheers, Adrian Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 19:59:10 +0000 Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 19:55:53 +0000 From: Adrian Farrel Subject: Slides on line To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org Cc: "Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS" Reply-to: Adrian Farrel Message-id: <006601c8351d$5a473940$7c01a8c0@your029b8cecfe> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1; reply-type=original Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Hi, A good number of slide sets are already on line. Go to the agenda at http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07dec/agenda/ccamp.htm and follow the links. Thanks to all who have made the effort to get their slides out early. Still looking for material for... Tuesday - Requirements for GMPLS Inter-Domain Routing (Tomohiro) - BGP Traffic Engineering Attribute (Yakov, Don, Hamid) - GMPLS Ethernet Label Switching Architecture and Framework (Don) - GMPLS control of Ethernet PBB-TE (Don) Thursday - ITU-T and OIF progress report (Lyndon) - ARP For GMPLS controlled PSC Ethernet Interfaces (Zafar) - OAM Requirements for GMPLS Networks (Tomohiro) - Ping and Traceroute for GMPLS LSPs in Non-Packet Switched Networks (Zafar) - GMPLS RSVP-TE Ethernet OAM Extensions (Attila) - VCAT/LCAS (Greg) - Lambda labels (Tomohiro) Apologies if you have already sent slides. Please e-kick me. Cheers, Adrian Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com Delivery-date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 12:54:48 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: comment on draft-otani-ccamp-gmpls-routing-interlink-01.txt Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 13:49:42 +0100 Message-ID: <8144761F31F48D43AD53D09F5350E38002176823@FRVELSMBS22.ad2.ad.alcatel.com> Thread-Topic: comment on draft-otani-ccamp-gmpls-routing-interlink-01.txt Thread-Index: Acg04c8CO25SA0PUSraJmcR4OeJpvg== From: "PAPADIMITRIOU Dimitri" To: hi -=20 reading this doc. it seems that two additional elements of analysis should be taken into account o) setting up unidirectional PSC LSP (or even other type) leads to an asymmetric bw counting that comes in addition to the setup bidirectional LSP o) ougoing information knowledge poses also the problem of the SC value at the other end of the link e.g. [LS2C;PSC] link note: there is a metric setting to be addressed when correlating information at such boundary thanks, -d.