IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mpls-tp] Query on MPLS-TP lsp ping extensions

Nitin Bahadur <nitinb@juniper.net> Fri, 07 May 2010 05:18 UTC

Return-Path: <nitinb@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: mpls-tp@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls-tp@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 528BC3A69EB for <mpls-tp@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 May 2010 22:18:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, 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 vDPmjbrSI0cW for <mpls-tp@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 May 2010 22:18:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og125.obsmtp.com (exprod7og125.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.28]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3A233A69D6 for <mpls-tp@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 May 2010 22:17:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from source ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob125.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKS+OiWPdMafT4y5JfWK6JpvIALfw1aqay@postini.com; Thu, 06 May 2010 22:17:17 PDT
Received: from EMBX02-HQ.jnpr.net ([fe80::18fe:d666:b43e:f97e]) by P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net ([fe80::88f9:77fd:dfc:4d51%11]) with mapi; Thu, 6 May 2010 22:16:45 -0700
From: Nitin Bahadur <nitinb@juniper.net>
To: Mukund Mani <mukund.mani@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 06 May 2010 22:16:42 -0700
Thread-Topic: Query on MPLS-TP lsp ping extensions
Thread-Index: AcrtVjfmlKmLwCamQw2Avl4f22r8vgATkKnf
Message-ID: <C808F04A.CC06%nitinb@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <i2t96cd39e61005061256s5a4eb67cj6e2f53afae5d5014@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/13.4.0.100208
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "mpls-tp@ietf.org" <mpls-tp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls-tp] Query on MPLS-TP lsp ping extensions
X-BeenThere: mpls-tp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: MPLS-TP Mailing list <mpls-tp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp>, <mailto:mpls-tp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls-tp>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls-tp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-tp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp>, <mailto:mpls-tp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 May 2010 05:18:39 -0000

Hi Mukund,

  See inline below to answers to your queries.

On 5/6/10 12:56 PM, "Mukund Mani" <mukund.mani@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Nitin

Wrt the draft-nitinb-mpls-tp-lsp-ping-extensions-01,  Section 3.1 refers to LSP Ping with IP encapsulation.
It is mentioned that the LSP-Ping reply mode in the LSP Ping echo request MUST
be set to 4 (Reply via application level control channel)
What IP application control channels are we referring to here?

NB> We are referring to the IP channel type of 0x21 (RFC 5085).

Also Section 3.2 (Non-IP based LSP Ping) mentions that the
ingress node MAY attach a Source Address TLV.
In MPLS-TP environment wouldn't this always be required?

NB> No. One can use either MEP-ID or Src-addr tlv to perform connectivity verification. Both are not needed and
hence the draft does not say it’s a MUST for src-addr tlv.

Irrespective, if one may use this TLV, as per the draft-ietf-mpls-tp-ach-tlv-02
it contains the IPv4 address. Shouldnt we have the TP identifier format instead?

NB> The draft is proposing to use the TLV described in ach-tlv draft. No new TLV is being added. If you look at the IANA section
of this draft, there is no request for a new tlv type for src-addr-tlv. Section 2.2 of the draft clarifies some of this. If you feel the
text is unclear, please propose alternative text and we can consider that.

Thanks
Nitin

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email