Re: [mpls] draft-nitinb-lsp-ping-over-mpls-tunnel-01 for wg document

All,
I provided my comments on this list to the authors of this draft back in
January.

My main issue is that a FEC Swap is different from FEC tunneling and
that the use of the FEC Stack Change Sub-TLV is not warranted. A reply
with the Target FEC stack TLV is sufficient.

My proposal to the authors was to make the FEC Stack Change Sub-TLV
optional and to limit its use to indicate the FEC being traced is
entering or exiting a tunnel or tunnels.

I support the draft if its scope is restricted to this.

Mustapha.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpls-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of Loa Andersson
> Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 7:47 AM
> To: mpls@ietf.org
> Cc: Ross Callon; David Ward
> Subject: [mpls] draft-nitinb-lsp-ping-over-mpls-tunnel-01 for 
> wg document
> 
> Working Group,
> 
> the authors of
> 
> Mechanism for performing LSP-Ping over MPLS tunnels 
> <draft-nitinb-lsp-ping-over-mpls-tunnel-01>
> 
> have requested that this draft is made a working group document.
> 
> Please send your comments/opinions (both positve and 
> negative) to the working group mailing list, or directly to 
> the working group chairs before April 11.
> 
> Loa and George
> 
> --
> Loa Andersson
> 
> Principal Networking Architect
> Acreo AB                           phone:  +46 8 632 77 14
> Isafjordsgatan 22                  mobile: +46 739 81 21 64
> Kista, Sweden                      email:  loa.andersson@acreo.se
>                                             loa@pi.se 
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> 
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls