[mpls] draft-zjns-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply
"Henderickx, Wim (Wim)" <wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com> Sun, 14 October 2012 17:04 UTC
Return-Path: <wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.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 7109E21F84D1 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Oct 2012 10:04:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.78
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.78 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.686, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, LOCALPART_IN_SUBJECT=2.02, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, SARE_SUB_OBFU_OTHER=0.135]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RiA4eZ3Er8is for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Oct 2012 10:04:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smail6.alcatel.fr (smail6.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56E5D21F846A for <mpls@ietf.org>; Sun, 14 Oct 2012 10:04:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB04.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB04.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.64]) by smail6.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id q9EH44EJ031171 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Sun, 14 Oct 2012 19:04:04 +0200
Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.41]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB04.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.64]) with mapi; Sun, 14 Oct 2012 19:04:04 +0200
From: "Henderickx, Wim (Wim)" <wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: "draft-zjns-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply@tools.ietf.org" <draft-zjns-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply@tools.ietf.org>, "mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "VIGOUREUX, MARTIN (MARTIN)" <martin.vigoureux@alcatel-lucent.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 19:04:03 +0200
Thread-Topic: draft-zjns-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply
Thread-Index: Ac2qLeltX1POOOjUR46vELi3+yY8uA==
Message-ID: <14C7F4F06DB5814AB0DE29716C4F6D6702E1D82C8D@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com>
Accept-Language: nl-NL, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: nl-NL, en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.69 on 155.132.188.84
Cc: "'mpls@ietf.org'" <mpls@ietf.org>
Subject: [mpls] draft-zjns-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply
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: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 17:04:07 -0000
I have been asked to review the above draft as one of the reviewers. The doc is useful in certain MPLS scenario's as described in the draft. It could be considered to be adopted as a WG doc. Here are some comments which would make the draft more sound. 1. Describe the behavior for devices that did not implement the additional TLVs. How would they behave. 2. Describe the behavior if the packet length would be exceeded by the Relay Node Address Stack TLV 3. Give an example in the text for the inter-AS and seamless MPLS scenario how the different devices behave with a use case 4. Describe in which scenarios this is applicable: mainly transport MPLS, but not in IP-VPN or L2-VPN scenarios
- [mpls] draft-zjns-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply Henderickx, Wim (Wim)
- Re: [mpls] draft-zjns-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply Ryan Zheng
- Re: [mpls] draft-zjns-mpls-lsp-ping-relay-reply Henderickx, Wim (Wim)