[mpls] Your comment to the draft-boutros-mpls-lsp-ping-ttl-tlv presentation yesterday in the MPLS WG.

Sami Boutros <sboutros@cisco.com> Tue, 27 July 2010 07:39 UTC

Return-Path: <sboutros@cisco.com>
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 B95D83A6A38 for <mpls@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Jul 2010 00:39:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.374
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.374 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.225, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 JwZArUY9d94j for <mpls@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Jul 2010 00:39:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com (sj-iport-4.cisco.com [171.68.10.86]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF2273A6AB1 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Jul 2010 00:39:38 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-4.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EAKcqTkyrR7Hu/2dsb2JhbACGMZk0caVhm0KFNgSECYcZ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.55,266,1278288000"; d="scan'208";a="163348036"
Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com ([171.71.177.238]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Jul 2010 07:39:47 +0000
Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o6R7dlcG002733; Tue, 27 Jul 2010 07:39:47 GMT
Received: from xfe-sjc-232.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.79]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 27 Jul 2010 00:39:46 -0700
Received: from sboutros-wxp02.ciswco.com ([10.21.127.172]) by xfe-sjc-232.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 27 Jul 2010 00:39:45 -0700
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 00:39:11 -0700
To: BUSI ITALO <Italo.Busi@alcatel-lucent.com>
From: Sami Boutros <sboutros@cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Message-ID: <XFE-SJC-232YoaT0fLG0000004a@xfe-sjc-232.amer.cisco.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Jul 2010 07:39:46.0324 (UTC) FILETIME=[E2AB3D40:01CB2D5E]
Cc: mpls@ietf.org
Subject: [mpls] Your comment to the draft-boutros-mpls-lsp-ping-ttl-tlv presentation yesterday in the MPLS WG.
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: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 07:39:44 -0000

Hi Italo,

The draft is about a new LSP Ping TLV that can be used to allow the 
verification of a segment of a MS-PW or a bidir co-routed LSP.

The mechanisms will be used for LSP Ping on demand CV only, i.e. this 
is not going to be used by all OAM functions.

Given that, if the # of hops in a given segment change due to FRR, 
then there will either be no reply for the LSP Ping echo request, or 
a reply will come from the wrong node, in either case the user 
issuing the on demand CV can simply re-send the request with the TTL 
TLV specifying the new # of hops.

Thanks,

Sami