IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [PWE3] [mpls] Solicit comments on draft-chen-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping

"Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com> Thu, 24 November 2011 17:13 UTC

Return-Path: <cpignata@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B9DF21F85FF; Thu, 24 Nov 2011 09:13:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.988
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.988 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.611, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 Bw7WRP05HR0x; Thu, 24 Nov 2011 09:13:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85D5121F85F2; Thu, 24 Nov 2011 09:13:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=cpignata@cisco.com; l=2317; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1322154793; x=1323364393; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:in-reply-to:references:from:to:cc; bh=Bm+O/xryhAhbfzGmMa6m18nZXAkAh6ohFOFzYM3njYo=; b=IF5R3a09CUcMIUeyAZVp+tfmRQ3XofuYM4FoAxibtR/JvBL6Bt1PBda/ EXXe2w00NDucmsGZk0XU8SeuRzaQPOQmXlRdDXb/L3R7bm1ixslbVZSOb AJs2p1Y/ct08slFj3+u82WnRRACE1Pj5FOR15EegOqm8ekEgysOPNll3u c=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AqMAANB6zk6tJXHA/2dsb2JhbABDmk2QJoEFgXIBAQEDAQEBAQ8BHQo0CwUHBAIBCBEEAQELBhcBBgEmHwkIAQEEARIIEweHYwiWOQGePIl/YwSIIZ5T
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.69,565,1315180800"; d="scan'208";a="38788120"
Received: from rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com ([173.37.113.192]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Nov 2011 17:13:13 +0000
Received: from xbh-rcd-201.cisco.com (xbh-rcd-201.cisco.com [72.163.62.200]) by rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id pAOHDD2Q024578; Thu, 24 Nov 2011 17:13:13 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-206.cisco.com ([72.163.62.213]) by xbh-rcd-201.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 24 Nov 2011 11:13:12 -0600
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 11:13:10 -0600
Message-ID: <960EC8F9A775AB40BF58D8953342D86306EC752A@XMB-RCD-206.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <71D87D6111F94757A7B7D6002CAEEC12@hnivarlas1>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [mpls] Solicit comments on draft-chen-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping
Thread-Index: AcyqwefP6PYm5F1lTVyfTGqnuQy9qgABONfg
References: <F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE21A4F3F9A@SZXEML511-MBX.china.huawei.com> <71D87D6111F94757A7B7D6002CAEEC12@hnivarlas1>
From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>
To: iLya <ilya@nobulus.com>, Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>, mpls@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Nov 2011 17:13:12.0960 (UTC) FILETIME=[58F80000:01CCAACC]
Cc: pwe3@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [PWE3] [mpls] Solicit comments on draft-chen-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping
X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge <pwe3.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pwe3>, <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pwe3>
List-Post: <mailto:pwe3@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3>, <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 17:13:14 -0000

iLya,

I would thing that such an provision is not specific to the Target FEC
Sub-TLVs for IPv6 PWs, and consequently out of scope of this document.
Note also that this is not a "v6 LSP Ping" spec as it does not cover
'LDP|VPN|BGP labeled|Generic IPv6 prefix' or 'RSVP IPv6 LSPs'.

There's also potentially the use of Reply Modes in RFC4379, as well as
other more generic solutions to that, which should be applicable to v4
and v6 LSP Traceroute.

Thanks,

-- Carlos.

-----Original Message-----
From: mpls-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
iLya
Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2011 10:58 AM
To: Mach Chen; mpls@ietf.org
Cc: pwe3@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mpls] Solicit comments on draft-chen-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping

Mach,

I wonder if v6 lsp ping specs could be ammended to specify that if
intermediate node needs to return "TTL expired" and do not have route
back to the source they SHOULD send "TTL expired" along the same path as
original packet would have taken. I know v4 lsp ping specs doesn't have
such point, but since that creates problem in Inter-AS MPLS Option C
environment while plain IP traceroute doesn't have such problem (due to
above described ICMP
tunneling) it would be nice if v6 lsp ping could fix the issue.

Cheers,
iLya

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Mach Chen" <mach.chen@huawei.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2011 3:46 AM
To: <mpls@ietf.org>
Cc: <pwe3@ietf.org>
Subject: [mpls] Solicit comments on draft-chen-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping

> Hi,
>
> We presented the draft in IETF 82th meeting (both in MPLS and PW3 WG) 
> and did not receive technical comments there. Although the authors 
> think that the draft is quite straightforward and stable, we'd like 
> that you could spend some time to read the draft and give your
comments.
>
> Any comments and feedbacks are appreciated!
>
> Here is the pointer: 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chen-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping-02 .
>
> Many thanks,
> Mach
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>
>

 

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email