Re: [mpls] I-D Action: draft-ninan-mpls-spring-inter-domain-oam-03.txt Mon, 14 June 2021 00:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F2093A167A; Sun, 13 Jun 2021 17:20:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Cl1pbGN8778x; Sun, 13 Jun 2021 17:20:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B8DD3A1679; Sun, 13 Jun 2021 17:19:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown []) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id C725A65D55A2CABFE0DE; Mon, 14 Jun 2021 08:19:58 +0800 (CST)
Received: from ([]) by with SMTP id 15E0Js9b016837; Mon, 14 Jun 2021 08:19:54 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from
Received: from mapi (mgapp01[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid81; Mon, 14 Jun 2021 08:19:54 +0800 (CST)
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2021 08:19:54 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2af960c6a0aa639c007e
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: 15E0Js9b016837
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [mpls] I-D Action: draft-ninan-mpls-spring-inter-domain-oam-03.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2021 00:20:06 -0000

Hi Shraddha and Authors,
thank you for updating the draft. I've reviewed the new version and couldn't find most of my comments addressed. Could you kindly help by pointing to the specific changes in the draft that, in your opinion, address my comments @ ?
As I've noted, I am not sure what is referred to as "the control plane" in the draft in describing the solution defined in RFC 7743. RFC 7743 itself does not, as I understand it, require that an Echo Reply is sent to the control plane at any step. If you have an implementation that does that, perhaps we can look at whether that is indeed the property of the solution or is implementation-specific.
Also, I'm still concern with the specification for traceroute mode in the draft. I have a couple of additional notes to add:
- RFC 7110, as well as RFC 7743 (I've pointed that out in my first comments), has traceroute outside the scope;
- RFC 8029 (Section 4.3) recommends using the Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV. I couldn't find that TLV being mentioned in the draft. If you believe that TLV must not be used, could you list reasons for not using the Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV?

Greg Mirsky
Sr. Standardization Expert
预研标准部/有线研究院/有线产品经营部  Standard Preresearch Dept./Wireline Product R&D Institute/Wireline Product Operation Division

------------------Original Mail------------------
Sender: ShraddhaHegde
To:; ;Mach Chen;gregory mirsky10211915;;;
Date: 2021/06/11 01:34
Subject: RE: [mpls] I-D Action: draft-ninan-mpls-spring-inter-domain-oam-03.txt
Hi All,

New version of draft-ninan-mpls-spring-inter-domain-oam is posted addressing comments from MPLS-RT review.
Pls take a look and let me know if you have further comments.


Juniper Business Use Only

-----Original Message-----
From: mpls  On Behalf Of
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2021 2:00 PM
Subject: [mpls] I-D Action: draft-ninan-mpls-spring-inter-domain-oam-03.txt

[External Email. Be cautious of content]

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG of the IETF.

Title           : PMS/Head-end based MPLS Ping and Traceroute in Inter-domain SR Networks
Authors         : Shraddha Hegde
Kapil Arora
Mukul Srivastava
Samson Ninan
Nagendra Kumar
Filename        : draft-ninan-mpls-spring-inter-domain-oam-03.txt
Pages           : 21
Date            : 2021-06-11

Segment Routing (SR) architecture leverages source routing and
tunneling paradigms and can be directly applied to the use of a
Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) data plane.  A network may
consist of multiple IGP domains or multiple ASes under the control of
same organization.  It is useful to have the LSP Ping and traceroute
procedures when an SR end-to-end path spans across multiple ASes or
domains.  This document describes mechanisms to facilitae LSP ping
and traceroute in inter-AS/inter-domain SR networks in an efficient
manner with simple OAM protocol extension which uses dataplane
forwarding alone for sending echo reply.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!WjDBRkDAvnDKCC6tb3iz7_nNl8kTHr2mV0bTh80i0AzKeABzFQV3dfGS5TuJNnI5{0}lt;br>
There is also an htmlized version available at:;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!WjDBRkDAvnDKCC6tb3iz7_nNl8kTHr2mV0bTh80i0AzKeABzFQV3dfGS5VMFXpJm{0}lt;br>
A diff from the previous version is available at:;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!WjDBRkDAvnDKCC6tb3iz7_nNl8kTHr2mV0bTh80i0AzKeABzFQV3dfGS5QEnIeV0{0}lt;br>

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!WjDBRkDAvnDKCC6tb3iz7_nNl8kTHr2mV0bTh80i0AzKeABzFQV3dfGS5T0hqLuk{0}lt;br>

mpls mailing list;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!WjDBRkDAvnDKCC6tb3iz7_nNl8kTHr2mV0bTh80i0AzKeABzFQV3dfGS5TdmWWCx{0}lt;br>