IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mpls-tp] Comments on draft-nitinb-mpls-tp-on-demand-cv-00

Nitin Bahadur <nitinb@juniper.net> Tue, 17 August 2010 19:14 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 C1D203A6804 for <mpls-tp@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Aug 2010 12:14:20 -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=[AWL=0.000, 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 StvR2VKyoVdA for <mpls-tp@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Aug 2010 12:14:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og110.obsmtp.com (exprod7og110.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.173]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D61183A67FB for <mpls-tp@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Aug 2010 12:14:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from source ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob110.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTGrfqLTVS3bUVAATUM1Lw2rkWIUgLPp9@postini.com; Tue, 17 Aug 2010 12:14:55 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; Tue, 17 Aug 2010 12:13:13 -0700
From: Nitin Bahadur <nitinb@juniper.net>
To: Mahesh Akula <mahesh.akula36@gmail.com>, Mach Chen <mach@huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 12:13:10 -0700
Thread-Topic: [mpls-tp] Comments on draft-nitinb-mpls-tp-on-demand-cv-00
Thread-Index: Acs+PMfGRzAZflr3Q42v7fBpae96yQAA3NIE
Message-ID: <C8902D56.16AE7%nitinb@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimrmc6ha7nTNMutCJM4FP7b8vyazF_R6+G3DU63@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="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "mpls-tp@ietf.org" <mpls-tp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls-tp] Comments on draft-nitinb-mpls-tp-on-demand-cv-00
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: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 19:14:20 -0000

Hi Mahesh,

> From this mail thread, can it be assumed that LSP Tracing without IP Encapsulation does not work for Associated bidirectional LSP's since there may not be a
> return LSP path from the responding transit node?

For co-routed LSPs, there will always be a return path. For non co-routed LSPs, there may not be a return path and non-IP encap might not work.

> Also when a node receives LSP Echo request w/o IP encapsulation and replymode "not" set to 4, should it drop the packet or should it try to respond back with
>  Malformed Echo request error?

   It should either drop the packet or respond back with the requested reply mode.

Thanks
Nitin

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email