Re: [mpls] Comments on draft-bryant-mpls-oam-udp-return

[Eric Gray <[e-mail]>]

I agree with the port reviewers.  A well-known port would have been a target.

From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2014 10:31 AM
To: Eric Gray; Gregory Mirsky; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [mpls] Comments on draft-bryant-mpls-oam-udp-return
Importance: High

On 09/04/2014 13:58, Eric Gray wrote:
Stewart,

                Well, you're adding 4 bytes to handle the case where the response is to be
returned using UDP.  This is in addition to the address information already included
in the message as defined by RFC 6374.
Sure


                It's certainly arguable that this new information does not need to be carried
in the test messages, assuming that there might be a control protocol used instead.



                The question as to whether or not this is "heavy-weight" depends on how
many additional ways one might envision returning the response.
Well I am not convinced that you would want to send it over TCP.
We already have a way to return it over MPLS - via LSP association
or via the use of a first hop label encoded in the address field.
That leaves UDP/IP which this draft deals with.

Our first thoughts were BTW to request a UDP port, and we submitted
a port request, but the port reviewers suggested that we should find a
way to do it using dynamic ports, and that is what the draft describes.

Stewart