Re: [mpls] Question about RFC 7439

["Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Adrian,

I believe you are right, in removing ³MplsLsrIdentifier" from that
sentence. As you imply, the answer seems to be in S4 of RFC 7552, at
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7552#section-4.

Thanks,

‹ Carlos.

-----Original Message-----
From: Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>
Date: Friday, January 15, 2016 at 8:41 AM
To: Wes George <[e-mail]>, Carlos Pignataro
<[e-mail]>
Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Question about RFC 7439

>Hi Wes and Carlos,
>
>Embarrassingly I was the AD for this document, but I still have a
>question.
>
>Section 3.5 comments about MplsLsrIdentifier.
>It says that RFC 3811 "lack[s] support for IPv6 in defining
>MplsExtendedTunnelId
>and MplsLsrIdentifier."
>It also says that "[MPLS-TC] tries to resolve this gap by marking this
>textual
>convention as obsolete."
>
>Note that the second quote refers to just one TC.
>
>Looking at 3811, 5036, and (most importantly) 7552, it seems to me that
>the LSR
>Identifier is *always* a 32 bit quantity regardless of whether the LDP
>system is
>v4-only, v4/v6, or v6-only.
>
>Furthermore, draft-manral-mpls-rfc3811bis (i.e., [MPLS-TC]) clearly shows
>no
>change to MplsLsrIdentifier while marking MplsExtendedTunnelId as
>obsolete.
>
>Notwithstanding that draft-manral-mpls-rfc3811bis appears to have been
>abandoned
>in state "candidate for WG adoption", it looks to me that RFC 7439 has an
>error
>we could call a typo.
>
>I propose the following Errata Report...
>
>OLD
>3.5.  MIB Modules
>
>   RFC 3811 [RFC3811] defines the textual conventions for MPLS.  These
>   lack support for IPv6 in defining MplsExtendedTunnelId and
>   MplsLsrIdentifier.  These textual conventions are used in the MPLS-TE
>   MIB specification [RFC3812], the GMPLS-TE MIB specification [RFC4802]
>   and the FRR extension [RFC6445].  "Definitions of Textual Conventions
>   (TCs) for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Management" [MPLS-TC]
>   tries to resolve this gap by marking this textual convention as
>   obsolete.
>NEW
>3.5.  MIB Modules
>
>   RFC 3811 [RFC3811] defines the textual conventions for MPLS.  These
>   lack support for IPv6 in defining MplsExtendedTunnelId.  This textual
>   conventions is used in the MPLS-TE MIB specification [RFC3812], the
>   GMPLS-TE MIB specification [RFC4802], and the FRR extension
>   [RFC6445].  "Definitions of Textual Conventions (TCs) for Multiprotocol
>   Label Switching (MPLS) Management" [MPLS-TC] tries to resolve this
>   gap by marking this textual convention as obsolete.
>END
>
>Am I wrong?
>
>Thanks,
>Adrian
>--
>Celebrate the New Year by buying someone you love a book.
>Tales from the Wood - Eighteen new fairy tales
>http://www.feedaread.com/books/Tales-from-the-Wood-9781786100924.aspx
>http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tales-Wood-Adrian-Farrel/dp/1786100924
>Or buy from me direct.
>
>
>
>