IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-bfd-mpls-05.txt

Rahul Aggarwal <rahul@juniper.net> Mon, 05 May 2008 16:33 UTC

Return-Path: <gen-art-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: gen-art-archive@optimus.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-gen-art-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 109383A6880; Mon, 5 May 2008 09:33:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: gen-art@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 354C03A695C for <gen-art@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 May 2008 09:33:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X8xHy17rI78f for <gen-art@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 May 2008 09:33:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og111.obsmtp.com (exprod7og111.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.175]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7CFF28C0E1 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 May 2008 09:33:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from source ([66.129.224.36]) by exprod7ob111.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP; Mon, 05 May 2008 09:32:58 PDT
Received: from magenta.juniper.net ([172.17.27.123]) by emailsmtp55.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 5 May 2008 09:31:56 -0700
Received: from sapphire.juniper.net (sapphire.juniper.net [172.17.28.108]) by magenta.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id m45GVux88153; Mon, 5 May 2008 09:31:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rahul@juniper.net)
Date: Mon, 05 May 2008 09:31:56 -0700
From: Rahul Aggarwal <rahul@juniper.net>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <48193C3C.3060601@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20080505093056.C79636@sapphire.juniper.net>
References: <4818F441.8050002@gmail.com> <20080430163046.K89520@sapphire.juniper.net> <48193C3C.3060601@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 May 2008 16:31:56.0976 (UTC) FILETIME=[88FB5300:01C8AECD]
Cc: Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net>, draft-ietf-bfd-mpls@tools.ietf.org, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, bfd-chairs@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-bfd-mpls-05.txt
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/gen-art>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: gen-art-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: gen-art-bounces@ietf.org

Hi Brian,

On Thu, 1 May 2008, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> Hi Rahul, thanks.
>
> But I'm about to file an erratum against RFC 4291.
> 0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:127/104 is definitely ambiguous notation.
> 127 could be decimal or hexadecimal
>
> 0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:127.0.0.0/104 or 0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F/104
> would be unambiguous. I think the second one is cleaner.
>

We will go for the second one. Thanks again.

rahul

> Regards
>    Brian Carpenter
>    University of Auckland
>
> P.S. The Brian Carpenter who said 'no objection' to this
> in the IESG ballot on draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping must have
> been someone else ;-)
>
> On 2008-05-01 11:35, Rahul Aggarwal wrote:
> > Hi Brian,
> >
> > Thanks for the comments. Please see below prefixed by <RA>:
> >
> > 1. 6. Session Establishment
> >
> >    A BFD session is boot-strapped using LSP-Ping. This specification
> >    describes procedures only for BFD asynchronous mode.
> >
> > Should you state explicitly that BFD Demand mode MUST NOT be used?
> >
> > <RA> I will spell out that BFD demand mode is out of scope.
> >
> > 7. Encapsulation
> >
> >    ...
> >
> >    The BFD control packet sent by the ingress LSR MUST be a UDP packet
> >    with a well known destination port 3784 [BFD-IP] and a source port
> >    assigned by the sender as per the procedures in [BFD-IP]. The source
> >    IP address is a routable address of the sender. The destination IP
> >    address is randomly chosen from the 127/8 range,
> >
> > This is written in IPv4 terms. What happens in an IPv6-only environment?
> > There is no range of loopback addresses to borrow in IPv6, but you could
> > use a ULA prefix.
> >
> > <RA> The procedures of RFC 4379 need to be used which is
> > basically a destination IPv6 address from the range
> > 0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:127/104. I will spell this out. Thanks for the catch.
> >
> > Will fix the idnits.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > rahul
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 1 May 2008, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email