[mpls] [MPLS] A doubt about RFC 6428
Alan Davey <Alan.Davey@metaswitch.com> Fri, 03 May 2013 17:11 UTC
Return-Path: <Alan.Davey@metaswitch.com>
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 2E5F821F8443 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 May 2013 10:11:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6yPvORe+j3sr for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 May 2013 10:11:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ENFICSETS1.metaswitch.com (enficsets1.metaswitch.com [192.91.191.38]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 177D421F8F2E for <mpls@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 May 2013 09:29:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ENFIRHMBX1.datcon.co.uk (172.18.74.36) by ENFICSETS1.metaswitch.com (172.18.4.18) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.342.3; Fri, 3 May 2013 17:28:32 +0100
Received: from ENFICSMBX1.datcon.co.uk ([fe80::d5d5:c683:a3be:3a19]) by ENFIRHMBX1.datcon.co.uk ([fe80::b06d:4d13:5f63:3715%19]) with mapi id 14.02.0342.003; Fri, 3 May 2013 17:29:19 +0100
From: Alan Davey <Alan.Davey@metaswitch.com>
To: "rfc6428@tools.ietf.org" <rfc6428@tools.ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [MPLS] A doubt about RFC 6428
Thread-Index: Ac5IG1yAbZhW1zCyQtKJoj7oW461Ug==
Date: Fri, 03 May 2013 16:29:19 +0000
Message-ID: <C2EE31C852049D499842B19FC01C0804C1A8C004@ENFICSMBX1.datcon.co.uk>
Accept-Language: en-US, en-GB
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [172.18.71.124]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C2EE31C852049D499842B19FC01C0804C1A8C004ENFICSMBX1datco_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Subject: [mpls] [MPLS] A doubt about RFC 6428
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <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: Fri, 03 May 2013 17:11:34 -0000
Folks I have a doubt about RFC 6428. Could you please let me know what you think of the following. Section 3.7.4.2., Exit from a Mis-Connectivity Defect, states that "Exit from a mis-connectivity defect state occurs when no CV messages with mis-connectivity defects have been received for a period of 3.5 seconds". However, the State Machines in section 3.7.5 have no input corresponding to an "Exit from a Mis-Connectivity Defect" timer pop. (Although they do have a MIS-CONNECTIVITY input added by RFC 6428.) If the State Machine is followed then Down state is exited as soon as the remote system signals Down state. Should the State Machines be modified such that Down state following a MIS-CONNECTIVITY input is only exited after an "Exit from a Mis-Connectivity Defect" timer pop input or am I missing something? Regards Alan Davey Network Technologies Metaswitch Networks alan.davey@metaswitch.com<mailto:alan.davey@metaswitch.com> +44 (0) 20 8366 1177 network-technologies.metaswitch.com<http://network-technologies.metaswitch.com/>
- [mpls] [MPLS] A doubt about RFC 6428 Alan Davey
- Re: [mpls] [MPLS] A doubt about RFC 6428 David Allan I
- Re: [mpls] [MPLS] A doubt about RFC 6428 Alan Davey
- Re: [mpls] [MPLS] A doubt about RFC 6428 David Allan I
- Re: [mpls] [MPLS] A doubt about RFC 6428 Alan Davey
- Re: [mpls] [MPLS] A doubt about RFC 6428 David Allan I
- Re: [mpls] [MPLS] A doubt about RFC 6428 Gregory Mirsky