IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mpls] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply-10: (with COMMENT)

"Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com> Wed, 30 September 2015 16:30 UTC

Return-Path: <aretana@cisco.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 0B6E41B4497; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 09:30:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 V7337akOjZSU; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 09:30:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2BFC11A874B; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 09:30:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=8238; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1443630654; x=1444840254; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=dAs89aYUH1oj8qsVdxKxjYw1PshJoIrouJCpCyTj68A=; b=VtcK+509LZYDv9Husr7GwTHt4X0f5y5sJXumqGZwEOSvCpsKUX0m5jOi aSVcbSZp0DvIv/+TRWWHmSYzl/YeU+BWER/R3WNgZw7dRoy8GsQefQU30 WO0kSrET74rgNhn3cG3jp+07y9FslPAhbJBYDXGtdVRoN603Rss5bavx0 k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AaAgALDgxW/4QNJK1egldNgUEGuUiEIQENh3QCgTc4FAEBAQEBAQGBCoQlAQEEZxIQAgEIDjEHIREUEQIEDgWIGQMSxmoNhHQBAQEBAQEBAwEBAQEBAQEBARmGcwGEfIJQgj0HhCwFkkaDMgGLIoFwlAiHSB8BAUKCRIE+cYh1gQUBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.17,613,1437436800"; d="scan'208,217"; a="37139074"
Received: from alln-core-10.cisco.com ([173.36.13.132]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 30 Sep 2015 16:30:39 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-010.cisco.com (xch-aln-010.cisco.com [173.36.7.20]) by alln-core-10.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t8UGUdos019795 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 30 Sep 2015 16:30:39 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-010.cisco.com (173.36.7.20) by XCH-ALN-010.cisco.com (173.36.7.20) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 11:30:38 -0500
Received: from xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com (173.36.12.85) by xch-aln-010.cisco.com (173.36.7.20) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 11:30:38 -0500
Received: from xmb-aln-x15.cisco.com ([169.254.9.98]) by xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com ([173.36.12.85]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 11:30:38 -0500
From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>
To: Lizhong Jin <lizho.jin@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply-10: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHQ+y2shocw9CdOr0a0uhi2/UxT8Z5Vi+kA//+4WwA=
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 16:30:38 +0000
Message-ID: <D2317826.D4775%aretana@cisco.com>
References: <20150930031111.861.10509.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAH==cJyTTSYHSSkJXjvv7vKL6dCU2AeCtNanO+enc9p0m1Ch6g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAH==cJyTTSYHSSkJXjvv7vKL6dCU2AeCtNanO+enc9p0m1Ch6g@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [173.36.7.18]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D2317826D4775aretanaciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/il1TyuOpYqJ3sHvFLnyqErCQyGk>
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply <draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, mpls-chairs <mpls-chairs@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply-10: (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: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 16:30:56 -0000

On 9/30/15, 10:46 AM, "Lizhong Jin" <lizho.jin@gmail.com<mailto:lizho.jin@gmail.com>> wrote:

Lizhong:

Hi!


2. Section 4.1. (Sending an Echo Request) says that the "Relay Node
Address Stack TLV MUST be carried in the Echo Request message if the
relay functionality is required”.  How does the initiator know that it
needs the functionality?
[Lizhong] This depends on the implementation. One way is the operator
will explicitly add an option to the ping command, e.g., ping mpls -r x.x.x.x,
where option "-r" refers to ping with relay reply.


3. Section 4.2. (Receiving an Echo Request) "A second or more address
entries MAY also be added if necessary, depending on implementation.”
Isn’t this document defining how the implementation should work?  What
are the cases where these additional entries may be added?
[Lizhong] we do not make any restriction that only one address entry is allowed
since the designed mechanism would work with multiple address entries. We
use word "MAY" to describe this. One possible case to use more address
entries is to provide more reliability, where one address becoming unreachable
could be replaced with the other one.

In both cases a little clarification in the text would be nice.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email