[mpls] Question about RFC 7439
"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Fri, 15 January 2016 13:41 UTC
Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
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 83E9C1B2D02 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Jan 2016 05:41:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 7eyuPQBqFLJB for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Jan 2016 05:41:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (asmtp5.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.176]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A0CB1B2D00 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Jan 2016 05:41:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u0FDf9Fv000698; Fri, 15 Jan 2016 13:41:09 GMT
Received: from 950129200 ([79.141.128.249]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u0FDf6HL000644 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 15 Jan 2016 13:41:07 GMT
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: wesley.george@twcable.com, cpignata@cisco.com
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 13:41:05 -0000
Message-ID: <06f301d14f9a$63011bf0$290353d0$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AdFPmbjIaEL3wN4lQbyDhznKiLgSnw==
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1679-8.0.0.1202-22066.007
X-TM-AS-Result: No--10.045-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--10.045-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: 3Oda+C3NjoHmdcm+4RXJ7cK7fT3t6J55StGAgmKqWuUPVb41Wr4BJ6ZE Tt/s5jFSDk/BWghZZhOO0HEoL+4qNsLk3xw1Sf9eU+OjsPhIWDjvuxUBBenYrbBOE9APtGEpK4y 9tZbFc857TtRd+Rdj8wnxfqppvFLB9dBT/rXQR8q4jAucHcCqnX4rryovYbmmqPm/sjj9KBhC2N m8Kw//Y0T5eteBYbZagbO6ndAwwWWJr1DakyMzT5WOaq+3+nxyg3XZcphu4kteNs5tWYvjCQk9h gFqz4UG4vM1YF6AJbZcLc3sLtjOt+TCMddcL/gjOwBXM346/+x3Aku17uUlvssi493p0AqTT28v VFibnfuTvwRDBflABIcKt/WUynNs
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/w9pNVUtwNPZw4hYTsMGHqbsOWKM>
Cc: mpls@ietf.org
Subject: [mpls] Question about RFC 7439
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
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: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 13:41:18 -0000
Hi Wes and Carlos, Embarrassingly I was the AD for this document, but I still have a question. Section 3.5 comments about MplsLsrIdentifier. It says that RFC 3811 "lack[s] support for IPv6 in defining MplsExtendedTunnelId and MplsLsrIdentifier." It also says that "[MPLS-TC] tries to resolve this gap by marking this textual convention as obsolete." Note that the second quote refers to just one TC. Looking at 3811, 5036, and (most importantly) 7552, it seems to me that the LSR Identifier is *always* a 32 bit quantity regardless of whether the LDP system is v4-only, v4/v6, or v6-only. Furthermore, draft-manral-mpls-rfc3811bis (i.e., [MPLS-TC]) clearly shows no change to MplsLsrIdentifier while marking MplsExtendedTunnelId as obsolete. Notwithstanding that draft-manral-mpls-rfc3811bis appears to have been abandoned in state "candidate for WG adoption", it looks to me that RFC 7439 has an error we could call a typo. I propose the following Errata Report... OLD 3.5. MIB Modules RFC 3811 [RFC3811] defines the textual conventions for MPLS. These lack support for IPv6 in defining MplsExtendedTunnelId and MplsLsrIdentifier. These textual conventions are used in the MPLS-TE MIB specification [RFC3812], the GMPLS-TE MIB specification [RFC4802] and the FRR extension [RFC6445]. "Definitions of Textual Conventions (TCs) for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Management" [MPLS-TC] tries to resolve this gap by marking this textual convention as obsolete. NEW 3.5. MIB Modules RFC 3811 [RFC3811] defines the textual conventions for MPLS. These lack support for IPv6 in defining MplsExtendedTunnelId. This textual conventions is used in the MPLS-TE MIB specification [RFC3812], the GMPLS-TE MIB specification [RFC4802], and the FRR extension [RFC6445]. "Definitions of Textual Conventions (TCs) for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Management" [MPLS-TC] tries to resolve this gap by marking this textual convention as obsolete. END Am I wrong? Thanks, Adrian -- Celebrate the New Year by buying someone you love a book. Tales from the Wood - Eighteen new fairy tales http://www.feedaread.com/books/Tales-from-the-Wood-9781786100924.aspx http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tales-Wood-Adrian-Farrel/dp/1786100924 Or buy from me direct.
- [mpls] Question about RFC 7439 Adrian Farrel
- Re: [mpls] Question about RFC 7439 Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)