IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mpls] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-self-ping-05: (with COMMENT)

Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 16 October 2015 16:12 UTC

Return-Path: <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47B6F1A1BD1; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 09:12:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 94HKZzH3yCFE; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 09:12:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-x22a.google.com (mail-vk0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::22a]) (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 BE5FB1A0275; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 09:12:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vkat63 with SMTP id t63so71252147vka.1; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 09:12:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=cuevXf8Xb8I7cfbvpYVaZQ/dPkXGzLUFSthjeXu5Ddo=; b=Fzr1wP2jST+wDszoPXscyCEvrQ195M900x2zvyuIA3EgqWRsJyO/ZgC7HKRKSKXYu4 guW/Gvg804uUE/J7kQYDjYTfWorxIE+rSk/Ykkbe3EmwIJgO5lqzgCvv2dPzS9qxYWRK bUr8+6dlp1kNZhqk5rwIVInGx5GPTOAJDq2sWZnkuIjtOlpFyt9ZiQpEE5GkvXaIfV4s CKyDF3K9cqazz3QWpShh48vwubLv/6EO1AqcheYBIcbumnbeAgtcb03FsCOXrJqOJ0PW J67agGP97oifJDeP717Ksfxg9FMO+hasy9QAelW2EO87QDtXtxO/ccY8x7sEryQ6bDgy gzsA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.31.107.18 with SMTP id g18mr11159809vkc.6.1445011965990; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 09:12:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.31.54.8 with HTTP; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 09:12:45 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <BLUPR05MB19855202B394EEFCEB71B009AE3D0@BLUPR05MB1985.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <BLUPR05MB1985C8B87E1F9F77A857D15DAE3E0@BLUPR05MB1985.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CAKKJt-dig5aaHRgJqmFQV0C0ULLgsEvCCCxFxsQaBN2C-3X6cA@mail.gmail.com> <BLUPR05MB19855202B394EEFCEB71B009AE3D0@BLUPR05MB1985.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 11:12:45 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKKJt-emJqoMSxZRowz1VPWmaVnOmA9JfBMJtZ+bJonhaD0tsA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1147871eedddd605223b10eb"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/bUlIULov0yvCH_HeWsiSbiFB2gM>
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-self-ping-05: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 16:12:48 -0000

Hi, Ron,

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> wrote:

> Hi Spence,
>
>
>
> I guess you deserve a better answer ;-)
>
>
>
> In LSP Self-ping, the ingress LSR:
>
>
>
> -          Formats a packet addressed to itself
>
> -          Sends the packet through the LSP under test
>
> -          Waits for the packet to return to it
>
>
>
> The ingress LSR is both the producer and consumer of the packet.
>
>
>
> In an earlier version of the draft, the ingress LSR selected a UDP port
> from the dynamic range (49152- 65535). Implementations could pick a single
> port and use it all the time or pick a port for each LSP Self-ping session.
> However, if an implementation did this, it would be difficult to identify
> and filter LSP Self-ping packets at the domain edge. So, the WG decided to
> put all LSP Self-ping traffic on UDP port 8503, so it could be easily
> identified and filtered.
>
>
>
>                                                  Ron
>

I was reading your first answer that way, but I didn't have the history
that the WG had considered this in detail, and appreciate you providing
that pointer.

Thanks,

Spencer

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email