RE: [mpls] draft-nadeau-mpls-interas-lspping-02.txt

Hi Thomas,

The intentions and theory of operation of the draft look good. As
someone else also pointed out, please clarify behavior for ping vs
traceroute.

The draft does not clarify traceroutes spanning IPv4 - IPv6 - IPv4 ASes
and vice-versa. In other words, the traceroute ingress AS is IPv4 AS and
the next transit-AS is IPV6 AS. The draft does not address if this will
work and if it will; how will the visited ASBR stack and failed node
addresses look like in such scenarios. I haven't thought of this in
detail, but it seems there might be other caveats to doing
lsp-traceroute across IPv4 - IPv6 domains.

Some nits on the inter-AS lsp-ping draft.

Section 5.1.
  "The purpose of this object is to allow the upstream router to relay
a"

   I think this should be *downstream* router. Or it should be re-worded
to "to allow the router upstream of the failed node to relay a".

Failed node IP address:
   The sub-section talks about Downstream node IP address and Downstream
node Interface address. I am not clear if this is referring to the DSMAP
TLV or something else. If it is, then note that DSMAP TLV may not be
present if there was an error at the transit router.

Failed Node AS Number:
  This sub-section is repeated twice.

Thanks
Nitin

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls