[mpls] Determining proper TTL of a tunnel in Fast LSP-alert Mechanism
Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Mon, 26 July 2010 20:52 UTC
Return-Path: <gregimirsky@gmail.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 CE0993A6937 for <mpls@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 13:52:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.398, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 6J1CG9KwbAUI for <mpls@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 13:52:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vw0-f44.google.com (mail-vw0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF8DB3A68B6 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 13:52:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vws10 with SMTP id 10so3024625vws.31 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 13:53:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:date:message-id :subject:from:to:content-type; bh=+TcxIH9SGsfrxrwntlYe2QyPYpqCnwFKgiiVPWCh83U=; b=uUZex0/eYsY1QTXatFtZtWHpZ8Y3mb64uAs1r31fBKxsrZnm4UNxGZRHANxB4LvIdA 9L8GG6PPDc5yq1ka3YkqOmG0/KlylEj+P0NZmIe0rnW3WE0ckgjgiOc5pFYtH7scaRSO zydvIR2gkoeOs7nVc0EZS8R+DhlCc3txZQTKw=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=hKAP4EC/NFYDeiXgojTMwQGF+Jg3beSDe+vzJlpsZQcOeXW/CSzpM6qVGsOt7cG5tQ QNvmWXRU88QFmuoQ8h5fhCo6md90VXb1Nl5rM/8M5ZmHeDv7XlFEaUYyh9X9MNMMAoDG QgcXTALH0HTcsyNbtBcktB3G9o1IqmGWobqek=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.59.202 with SMTP id m10mr4265320vch.193.1280177599816; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 13:53:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.86.72 with HTTP; Mon, 26 Jul 2010 13:53:19 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 13:53:19 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTinf_TdjCXfvZDhEMjrkuM3bowYwKe-2NsSftTrf@mail.gmail.com>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
To: Autumn Liu <autumn.liu@ericsson.com>, Sriganesh Kini <sriganesh.kini@ericsson.com>, mpls@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="e0cb4e8878271624e9048c5093ac"
Subject: [mpls] Determining proper TTL of a tunnel in Fast LSP-alert Mechanism
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: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 20:52:59 -0000
Dear Authors, the Section 3.2.2 states new requirement which ends with the sentence: "An LSP label on the forwarded packet MUST continue to have TTL set to 1." But at the same time, in Section 6 when outlining direction for future work, it is said that in heterogeneous environment value of TTL must be determined by each node that supports the Fast LSP-alert mechanism. Does that scenario invalidates the requirement put forward in Section 3.2.2? Regards, Greg
- [mpls] Determining proper TTL of a tunnel in Fast… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [mpls] Determining proper TTL of a tunnel in … Sriganesh Kini