Re: [mpls] [MPLS] A doubt about RFC 6428

Alan Davey <Alan.Davey@metaswitch.com> Thu, 09 May 2013 10:59 UTC

Return-Path: <Alan.Davey@metaswitch.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 862E721F8EED for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 May 2013 03:59:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2wb98riQpSEV for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 May 2013 03:59:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ENFIRHETS1.metaswitch.com (enfirhets1.metaswitch.com [192.91.191.166]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A977C21F859A for <mpls@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 May 2013 03:59:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ENFICSCAS1.datcon.co.uk (172.18.4.13) by ENFIRHETS1.metaswitch.com (172.18.209.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.342.3; Thu, 9 May 2013 11:57:27 +0100
Received: from ENFICSMBX1.datcon.co.uk ([fe80::d5d5:c683:a3be:3a19]) by ENFICSCAS1.datcon.co.uk ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0342.003; Thu, 9 May 2013 11:59:01 +0100
From: Alan Davey <Alan.Davey@metaswitch.com>
To: David Allan I <david.i.allan@ericsson.com>
Thread-Topic: [MPLS] A doubt about RFC 6428
Thread-Index: Ac5IG1yAbZhW1zCyQtKJoj7oW461UgACNQsQARrVc5A=
Date: Thu, 09 May 2013 10:59:00 +0000
Message-ID: <C2EE31C852049D499842B19FC01C0804C1A8CD51@ENFICSMBX1.datcon.co.uk>
References: <C2EE31C852049D499842B19FC01C0804C1A8C004@ENFICSMBX1.datcon.co.uk> <E6C17D2345AC7A45B7D054D407AA205C097D0A@eusaamb105.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <E6C17D2345AC7A45B7D054D407AA205C097D0A@eusaamb105.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: en-US, en-GB
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [172.18.71.124]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C2EE31C852049D499842B19FC01C0804C1A8CD51ENFICSMBX1datco_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] [MPLS] A doubt about RFC 6428
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Thu, 09 May 2013 10:59:07 -0000

Hi Dave

Thank you very much for getting back to me so quickly.  I have a further question on RFC 6428 if you have another minute.

In section 3.5.3,  PW End Point MEP-ID, I think that the text defining the Length field is confusing because it is not clear if the length includes the AGI.  The text is currently as follows.

  The length is the length of the following data: the Global_ID, Node Identifier, and Attachment
   Circuit ID (AC_ID) are as per [9].

Am I correct in thinking that the Length field  is the length of the value fields, as for the Section MEP-ID in section 3.5.1 and the LSP MEP-ID in section 3.5.2?  That is, should the text read as follows.

  The length is the length of the value fields.  The Global_ID, Node Identifier, and Attachment
   Circuit ID (AC_ID) are as per [9].

Thanks
Alan

From: David Allan I [mailto:david.i.allan@ericsson.com]
Sent: 03 May 2013 18:35
To: Alan Davey; rfc6428@tools.ietf.org
Cc: mpls@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [MPLS] A doubt about RFC 6428

Hi Alan:

It is kind of implied, as in "received DOWN while NOT in a misconnectivity state". I'm not sure adding that to the state machine diagram would actually improve the clarity....I'll let others comment.

cheers
Dave

________________________________
From: mpls-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org> [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alan Davey
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 9:29 AM
To: rfc6428@tools.ietf.org<mailto:rfc6428@tools.ietf.org>
Cc: mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
Subject: [mpls] [MPLS] A doubt about RFC 6428
Folks

I have a doubt about RFC 6428.  Could you please let me know what you think of the following.

Section 3.7.4.2., Exit from a Mis-Connectivity Defect, states that "Exit from a mis-connectivity defect state occurs when no CV messages with mis-connectivity defects have been received for a period of 3.5 seconds".

However, the State Machines in section 3.7.5 have no input corresponding to an "Exit from a Mis-Connectivity Defect" timer pop.  (Although they do have a MIS-CONNECTIVITY input added by RFC 6428.)  If the State Machine is followed then Down state is exited as soon as the remote system signals Down state.

Should the State Machines be modified such that Down state following a MIS-CONNECTIVITY input is only exited after an "Exit from a Mis-Connectivity Defect" timer pop input or am I missing something?

Regards
Alan Davey

Network Technologies
Metaswitch Networks

alan.davey@metaswitch.com<mailto:alan.davey@metaswitch.com>
+44 (0) 20 8366 1177
network-technologies.metaswitch.com<http://network-technologies.metaswitch.com/>