Re: [mpls] Question on draft-lm-mpls-sfc-path-verification

[Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>]

Yao,

So most is sorted out :).

Some small issues.

On 17/09/2020 18:47, [e-mail] wrote:
> 
> 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 
"currently means that it is defined in section 3.3 of 
draft-lm-mpls-sfc-path-verification, right. I find the definition is 3.3 
rather weak, more detals is needed. e.g. that the sub-tlv is defined for 
FEC Stack TLV (TLV #1).
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. 
ok- fine, but the sub-TLVs are shared between TLV 1, 16, and 21. Is that 
true for the SFC Basic Unit FEC Sub-TLV?
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.
OK - and you need to point out the range from which the sub-tlv should 
be allocated.

/Loa

PS

Plz note that we are doing updates to the LSP Ping registry, so far I 
have not seen anything that directly have an impact on this draft.
See - draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update-.
> 
> 

-- 

Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]
Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: [phone]