[mpls-tp] Question to draft-boutros-mpls-lsp-ping-ttl-tlv-03.txt

zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn Fri, 04 March 2011 04:05 UTC

Return-Path: <zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn>
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 4EDD03A6926; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 20:05:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.387
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.387 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.451, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_DOUBLE_IP_LOOSE=0.76, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 JGzcipaFH77m; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 20:05:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx5.zte.com.cn (mx6.zte.com.cn [63.218.89.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A07C83A6920; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 20:05:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.34.0.130] by mx5.zte.com.cn with surfront esmtp id 35101570495873; Fri, 4 Mar 2011 12:04:11 +0800 (CST)
Received: from [10.30.3.20] by [192.168.168.15] with StormMail ESMTP id 84746.5667502205; Fri, 4 Mar 2011 12:06:22 +0800 (CST)
Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse01.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id p2446HYU018411; Fri, 4 Mar 2011 12:06:17 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn)
To: sboutros@cisco.com, msiva@cisco.com, ssaxena@cisco.com, vishwas@ipinfusion.com, swallow@cisco.com, aldrin.ietf@gmail.com, mpls@ietf.org, mpls-tp@ietf.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-KeepSent: 90D453BE:251E5CDA-48257849:000F2901; type=4; name=$KeepSent
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.6 March 06, 2007
Message-ID: <OF90D453BE.251E5CDA-ON48257849.000F2901-48257849.00168A67@zte.com.cn>
From: zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2011 12:06:18 +0800
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.1FP4|July 25, 2010) at 2011-03-04 12:06:17, Serialize complete at 2011-03-04 12:06:17
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 00168A6448257849_="
X-MAIL: mse01.zte.com.cn p2446HYU018411
Subject: [mpls-tp] Question to draft-boutros-mpls-lsp-ping-ttl-tlv-03.txt
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, 04 Mar 2011 04:05:23 -0000

Dear Authors, 

I have read this version of the draft, here are some comments, please 
consider

1. The last paragraph in introduction , "The  scope  of  this  TTL  TLV is 
 currently  limited  to  MS-PW  or Bidirectional co-routed MPLS TP LSPs."

Just my two cents, I think you can enlarge the scope to inlcude associated 
bidirectional LSP, for the initiator can learn the TTL TLV value from the 
NMS or control plane. Furthermore, the same intermediate nodes know the 
binding relationship of the two unidirectional LSPs (one from west to east 
and the other one form east to west) according to the definition in 
RFC5654. 

2. Section 4.2

 "Return TTL Value = (TTL TLV Value)-(Incoming Label TTL)-1" SHOULD be 
"Return TTL Value = (TTL TLV Value)-(Incoming Label TTL)+1" ? 

Fei