Re: [mpls] nits and question on draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-02

"Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <> Sat, 11 February 2017 19:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0606D129421; Sat, 11 Feb 2017 11:16:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.521
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.521 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mcnsnoFCbnh6; Sat, 11 Feb 2017 11:16:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 124C21293EC; Sat, 11 Feb 2017 11:16:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=12700; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1486840614; x=1488050214; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=+vlABHzkfLzedb1y3BuG4i55BRwn2nlx91zJj59CrJY=; b=fCgO1uhZUOa93nx8Hfd7rjJJQA6iA+JSWj/0CcojaUmjHgz1Gur5UKF6 o//Nw+7BlVNxE3hsjaZ1vvnyuZl4CiIiGM7tv795MdBMLT698FPE43uhp Kf1lqMrwoVUIoW/d5onuCBsa1zXprpjiRtgRH3tmtkj+O5Z0t8+vNqDGP o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.35,147,1484006400"; d="scan'208,217";a="384418663"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 11 Feb 2017 19:16:53 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v1BJGro3022230 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sat, 11 Feb 2017 19:16:53 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Sat, 11 Feb 2017 13:16:52 -0600
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Sat, 11 Feb 2017 13:16:52 -0600
From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <>
Thread-Topic: [mpls] nits and question on draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-02
Thread-Index: AQHShI3kjsva65kUME2RMyZZz5c3mqFkhRMAgAAJCwCAAAQigA==
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 19:16:47 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_A9C6442D12AA4CD89F9C76B0CBF42AC5ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [mpls] nits and question on draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-02
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 19:16:56 -0000

Hi Acee,

On Feb 11, 2017, at 2:02 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <<>> wrote:

Hi Carlos,

I guess I commented without knowing the context of the comment ;^) See inline.

From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <<>>
Date: Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 1:29 PM
To: Acee Lindem <<>>
Cc: Loa Andersson <<>>, "<>" <<>>, "<>" <<>>, "<>" <<>>
Subject: Re: [mpls] nits and question on draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-02

Hi, Acee,

On Feb 11, 2017, at 12:40 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <<>> wrote:

And a last question, should BGP-LS be in that registry?

I guess no until someone needs it?

BGP-LS has its own set of registries.

Thanks. Yes. The question is whether to have a BGP-LS value for the MPLS LSP Ping DDMAP protocol:

In that case, it might make sense to add a code point for BGP-LS since it is the only way to advertise the SIDs (i.e, labels when MPLS SR is the data plane) for BGP EPE as described in However, one could argue that specifying BGP would suffice since unless you are going to specify other BGP Address Families (AFI/SAFI tuples) as individual protocols.

That’s exactly the question — use the BGP protocol or define a new BGP-LS?

To me though, until someone sits down to do the BGP EPE LSP Ping analysis, we should not assume one way or another.