IETF Logo Mail Archive

[mpls] RDI

Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Mon, 12 March 2018 18:24 UTC

Return-Path: <gregimirsky@gmail.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 77102126BFD; Mon, 12 Mar 2018 11:24:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gQio24RsjxkO; Mon, 12 Mar 2018 11:24:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf0-x22d.google.com (mail-lf0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A520126B7E; Mon, 12 Mar 2018 11:24:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id w16-v6so3668065lfc.13; Mon, 12 Mar 2018 11:24:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=3VP8+zy2NAgiiTzbpiOJYmcmwAO6l3uxgbakBAN/Sbg=; b=NKr5WriaQffrAn6LjJIR9oMqFjkhz72zZb5PRLpb49TReD+XaPfbr6Bxtqd3ippE6l NSZXSxnSklJrF3/PjgxzRbCcJq0jVHb+w51Koegxshucn1HwLjzU6n9yKRvtaaC8KBKA XyiYF88iT8bnSlcdmPTo2vvu9ZvJVH+3X7GWzPh0A/9fReWFCU9Ggo93vIAImpV5dTsR j4WgLXurJi+EVsutQxfMOySY+rV67NB9u0zv7wwNMvbUYXzsgVfgzNN6k77pR/yPI3PR q92V2xf5N/1g9iTadag6GkoSFBLo90GJMh6ZiywSPiDK1n25E7OV9Bzv264kMiAG1mp0 b3zA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=3VP8+zy2NAgiiTzbpiOJYmcmwAO6l3uxgbakBAN/Sbg=; b=VB0PvyfSH7KElR04nDSZsdPxj3d8VHqHcE9YVG3pLR1c64m5VhzZDOTGiHAyPCbhvO a0Z3D7WHphVt3IOj4uVgz4S879Zw1vXu8OIqOyAzgeOahRIYRDeeHJfIK2toM0rJHmLc 7mwfytM/72XBk+usMCv6c/MuxMgrviCdBbXrKMmzjrybk3lO4Hky6hVaqpDImmZVNc9u Go9PG4d2nh5/vRBLKdoQFnRX8PXQG3/3tVKdnG/ztsKBWdk8Qqy4GX5cTUNyie+lZNDN oY/En3G7usalE1Sm+NddzJx9V8N/EvBlmzwJemxVczXvgpfrEDCmY7rYqsFxt7wgsTN7 btUQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7H3ksDc3szMWVPFw7jCw7Hg1Jv4/TqDlrLdxZlqjliHAt3W8645 xYTONQdUe6CYhXm83Dzoi4+addzApEhWLYsu4gtxtA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELuLNBp6bxdtjabdpCuOc4Nqer2gADDi5Dhpzfhxl/iPyonkyUuPXYbwPApQn+dp4g4qx0SmtnZmyx2nUfOt3l8=
X-Received: by 10.46.124.11 with SMTP id x11mr5649522ljc.72.1520879059293; Mon, 12 Mar 2018 11:24:19 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.46.145.195 with HTTP; Mon, 12 Mar 2018 11:24:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 11:24:18 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmXNYv3cbih08AnphZFPr3VMqCRpmC2Lvs6ZjJkGdVc0hQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: draft-ama-mpls-fm-rdi@ietf.org, mpls@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f4f5e8072a80135aaa05673b40a1"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/CbvEdgf_a7E_StHx7utnQJTbiI4>
Subject: [mpls] RDI
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 18:24:26 -0000

Dear Authors,
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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email