Re: [mpls] Question on draft-lm-mpls-sfc-path-verification
liu.yao71@zte.com.cn Thu, 17 September 2020 10:47 UTC
Return-Path: <liu.yao71@zte.com.cn>
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 0E0283A0F20; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 03:47:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.917
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.917 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 v1VYJ5iHgQOB; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 03:47:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E76183A0F1C; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 03:47:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxct.zte.com.cn (unknown [192.168.164.217]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id 32AEF77719C654D4D090; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 18:47:24 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mse-fl1.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.14.238]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id 010CDCB481F1076B32C6; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 18:47:24 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njxapp02.zte.com.cn ([10.41.132.201]) by mse-fl1.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 08HAlCCP078760; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 18:47:12 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from liu.yao71@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njxapp02[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid203; Thu, 17 Sep 2020 18:47:12 +0800 (CST)
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 18:47:12 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afa5f633eb01765e82f
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202009171847126426566@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <3a54d74e-2608-db8b-6879-7f9f79c7e2dd@pi.nu>
References: 3a54d74e-2608-db8b-6879-7f9f79c7e2dd@pi.nu
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: liu.yao71@zte.com.cn
To: loa@pi.nu
Cc: draft-lm-mpls-sfc-path-verification@ietf.org, mpls@ietf.org, mpls-chairs@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl1.zte.com.cn 08HAlCCP078760
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/hVglC6V56iZ1PtV-L_pIDcJJ0SY>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Question on draft-lm-mpls-sfc-path-verification
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 10:47:31 -0000
Hi Loa, Thanks a lot for reaching back to me and your time for reading the draft. Please find my responses inline, see [Yao]. 原始邮件 发件人:LoaAndersson <loa@pi.nu> 收件人:draft-lm-mpls-sfc-path-verification@ietf.org <draft-lm-mpls-sfc-path-verification@ietf.org>;mpls@ietf.org <mpls@ietf.org>;mpls-chairs@ietf.org <mpls-chairs@ietf.org>;刘尧00165286; 日 期 :2020年09月17日 13:09 主 题 :Question on draft-lm-mpls-sfc-path-verification Yao, This is a follow up from your presentation at the MPLS interim meeting September 16, 2020. Thank you for the draft, I think the the problem you are addressing might turn out to be real. A few early comments though. You are defining new a new LSP Ping TLV and two sub-TLVs for this TLV, but there are no IANA section in the document. An IANA section would probably have made it easier to parse the document. [Yao] The IANA session will be added in the next version, thanks for the suggestion. However mostly my question was because I missed the early slides, including the SFC Validation TLV. So let us see if I got it right after reading the document and go over the slides again. You define a new LSP Ping TLV - the SFC Validation TLV. You also define two sub-TLVs - the SFC Info Sub-TLV and the SFC Basic Unit FEC Sub-TLV. The SFC Validation TLV may be included in a MPLS echo request or an MPLS echo reply. [Yao] Yes, the SFC Validation TLV may be included in both the MPLS echo request and the MPLS echo reply. The SFC Basic Unit FEC Sub-TLV maybe included in a SFC Validation TLV carried both in a MPLS echo request and a MPLS echo reply. [Yao] Currently the SFC Basic Unit FEC Sub-TLV is denfined as a sub-TLV of the Target FEC Stack TLV, carried in a MPLS echo request. Its usage is similar to other sub-TLVs of the Target FEC Stack. The information carried in the Basic Unit FEC Sub-TLV is obtained from the control plane. After receiving a MPLS echo request with the Target FEC Stack TLV and the SFC Basic Unit FEC Sub-TLV included, an SFF may enter the FEC validation procedure to check whether the information is the same between the control place and the local data plane. If the validation is not passed, the SFF will generate an MPLS echo reply with an error code as defined in RFC8029. The SFC Info Sub-TL mayb be included in a SFC Validation TLV only if the TLV is carried in a MPLS echo replay. [Yao] Yes, the SFC Info Sub-TLV can only be carried in a MPLS echo reply. Correct? You need to define which range the TLV and sub-TLVs should be allocated from. [Yao] I'll make the definition more clear as you suggested. Thank you again. /Loa -- Loa Andersson email: loa@pi.nu Senior MPLS Expert loa.pi.nu@gmail.com Bronze Dragon Consulting phone: +46 739 81 21 64
- [mpls] Question on draft-lm-mpls-sfc-path-verific… Loa Andersson
- Re: [mpls] Question on draft-lm-mpls-sfc-path-ver… liu.yao71
- Re: [mpls] Question on draft-lm-mpls-sfc-path-ver… Loa Andersson
- Re: [mpls] Question on draft-lm-mpls-sfc-path-ver… liu.yao71