Re: [mpls] RDI

[Huub van Helvoort <[e-mail]>]

Dear authors,

In addition to the questions from Greg I have the following
questions:

1) Are you aware of the fact that In other technologies the
    Remote Defect Indication (RDI) is defined in order to support
    single-ended operation, the defect status at the downstream
    LER shall be conveyed back to the upstream LER (via the RDI
    signal). Hence, in the case where the LERs lie in the domains of
    different operators, the operations systems (OSs) in both networks
    will have access to performance information from both LSP ends,
    without the need for OS-to-OS information exchange.

2) in the introduction you claim: "This allows the two MPLS-TP
    LERs to coordinate failover to backup LSPs."
    Are you aware of RFC 6378 MPLS-TP linear protection which
    describes already a protocol to coordinate failover?

Best regards, Huub.

---------

I've read the new draft and have couple questions:

• what you see missing in RFC 6428 that motivated you to start this new document;
• in Introduction you refer to BFD base specification RFC 5880. I think that references to RFC 5884 and RFC 6428 are more appropriate for MPLS-TP scenario you consider
• I believe that RDI already has been defined in Section 3.2 of RFC 6428 as:

   RDI is communicated via the BFD diagnostic field in BFD CC messages,

   and the diagnostic code field in CV messages MUST be ignored.  It is

   not a distinct PDU.  As per [4], a sink MEP SHOULD encode a

   diagnostic code of "1 - Control Detection Time Expired" when the time

   since the last received BFD control packet exceeds the detection

   time, which is equal to the remote system's Transmit Interval

   multiplied by the remote system's Detect Multiplier (which is set to

   3 in this document).  

Regards,

Greg

-- 
================================================================
Always remember that you are unique...just like everyone else...