IETF Logo Mail Archive

[mpls] (no subject)

dai.xuehui@zte.com.cn Wed, 28 April 2010 08:49 UTC

Return-Path: <dai.xuehui@zte.com.cn>
X-Original-To: mpls@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F9103A67B2; Wed, 28 Apr 2010 01:49:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -97.439
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-97.439 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.884, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MISSING_SUBJECT=1.762, 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 COWSPUJmd2-J; Wed, 28 Apr 2010 01:49:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx5.zte.com.cn (mx5.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6C253A65A6; Wed, 28 Apr 2010 01:49:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.30.17.99] by mx5.zte.com.cn with surfront esmtp id 36887813339890; Wed, 28 Apr 2010 16:45:08 +0800 (CST)
Received: from [192.168.168.1] by [192.168.168.15] with StormMail ESMTP id 6793.3729454058; Wed, 28 Apr 2010 16:49:12 +0800 (CST)
Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse2.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id o3S8keeZ029300; Wed, 28 Apr 2010 16:49:03 +0800 (CST) (envelope-from dai.xuehui@zte.com.cn)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MIMETrack: S/MIME Sign by Notes Client on DaiXueHui078045/user/zte_ltd(Release 6.5.4|March 27, 2005) at 2010-04-28 16:53:50, Serialize by Notes Client on DaiXueHui078045/user/zte_ltd(Release 6.5.4|March 27, 2005) at 2010-04-28 16:53:50, Serialize complete at 2010-04-28 16:53:50, S/MIME Sign failed at 2010-04-28 16:53:51: 找不到编码密钥, S/MIME Sign by Notes Client on DaiXueHui078045/user/zte_ltd(Release 6.5.4|March 27, 2005) at 2010-04-28 16:54:16, Serialize by Notes Client on DaiXueHui078045/user/zte_ltd(Release 6.5.4|March 27, 2005) at 2010-04-28 16:54:16, Serialize complete at 2010-04-28 16:54:16, S/MIME Sign failed at 2010-04-28 16:54:16: 找不到编码密钥, Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 6.5.4|March 27, 2005) at 2010-04-28 16:48:53, Serialize complete at 2010-04-28 16:48:53
To: rahul@juniper.net, kireeti@juniper.net, swallow@cisco.com
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.4 March 27, 2005
Message-ID: <OF185DED03.EFAA1726-ON48257713.002D8903-48257713.0030EA23@zte.com.cn>
From: dai.xuehui@zte.com.cn
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 16:46:50 +0800
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 0030EA2148257713_="
X-MAIL: mse2.zte.com.cn o3S8keeZ029300
Cc: mpls@ietf.org, "rtg-bfd@ietf.org" <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
Subject: [mpls] (no subject)
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 08:49:33 -0000

Hi all,

In RFC4379, Section 4.3 - "Sending an MPLS Echo Request", The Router Alert 
option MUST be set in the IP header.

In draft-ietf-bfd-mpls-07, section-7 "Encapsulation", I can *NOT* find 
anything about "the Router Alert Option".

IMO, the MPLS-BFD refer to RFC4379; why are they  *NOT* the same on the 
operation of "Router Alert Option"? 




Best Regards.

v2.40.4 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status