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

David Allan I <david.i.allan@ericsson.com> Fri, 03 May 2013 17:41 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=0835415576=david.i.allan@ericsson.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 2750521F919D for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 May 2013 10:41:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 kjk0NBTX6sCx for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 May 2013 10:41:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usevmg20.ericsson.net (usevmg20.ericsson.net [198.24.6.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0A9821F9026 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 May 2013 10:35:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c618062d-b7ff46d000006709-33-5183f5465dcb
Received: from EUSAAHC003.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.81]) by usevmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 9D.6A.26377.645F3815; Fri, 3 May 2013 19:35:02 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from EUSAAMB105.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.122]) by EUSAAHC003.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.81]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Fri, 3 May 2013 13:34:57 -0400
From: David Allan I <david.i.allan@ericsson.com>
To: Alan Davey <Alan.Davey@metaswitch.com>, "rfc6428@tools.ietf.org" <rfc6428@tools.ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [MPLS] A doubt about RFC 6428
Thread-Index: Ac5IG1yAbZhW1zCyQtKJoj7oW461UgACNQsQ
Date: Fri, 03 May 2013 17:34:56 +0000
Message-ID: <E6C17D2345AC7A45B7D054D407AA205C097D0A@eusaamb105.ericsson.se>
References: <C2EE31C852049D499842B19FC01C0804C1A8C004@ENFICSMBX1.datcon.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <C2EE31C852049D499842B19FC01C0804C1A8C004@ENFICSMBX1.datcon.co.uk>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.134]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E6C17D2345AC7A45B7D054D407AA205C097D0Aeusaamb105ericsso_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrILMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXRPoK7b1+ZAgycftSyeTJvFZnFr6UpW i8knl7E6MHssWfKTyePozbnMHl8uf2YLYI7itklKLCkLzkzP07dL4M54eaqZpeCJXcXhr33s DYxN5l2MnBwSAiYS7//NZYOwxSQu3FsPZHNxCAkcZZT4fHwXE0hCSGAZo8T3m94gNpuAgcSe /18YQWwRgXiJ2Z+nA9VwcDALKEucuisDYgoLaEk8n1UCUaEtsWNqDxOEbSQxo+UhK4jNIqAi seRKDzuIzSvgLXHk3TuwKUICfhI7GvJATE4Bf4mHf/1BKhiBDvt+ag3YFGYBcYlbT+YzQRws ILFkz3lmCFtU4uXjf6wQtrLEkif7WSDq8yVa/zcwQWwSlDg58wnLBEbRWUhGzUJSNgtJGURc R2LB7k9sELa2xLKFr5lh7DMHHjMhiy9gZF/FyFFanFqWm25ksIkRGGPHJNh0dzDueWl5iFGa g0VJnDeKqzFQSCA9sSQ1OzW1ILUovqg0J7X4ECMTByeI4JJqYIz/yBbiUC5kwlB2rDe4qnHL nPdzT12RjtiZznclwWri9/BzyxpEZM0TDiqG3amuzS3J+RRjbHV+z5bJQjmmOX0L44Ms6kx0 Q2ceC7zz41aU9Jk9dSXJ375LrzCWaI5y2a4Sw7uwPtgs9kDSQq2jzJcddyhmt8Z7xq59GO2i 7uVxLKQGGNBKLMUZiYZazEXFiQCQokbWhAIAAA==
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: Fri, 03 May 2013 17:41:36 -0000

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] On Behalf Of Alan Davey
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 9:29 AM
To: rfc6428@tools.ietf.org
Cc: 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/>