ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-on-demand-cv-06.txt> (MPLS On-demand Connectivity Verification and Route Tracing) to Proposed Standard

2011-08-22 09:21:34
Hi,

I don't see any TLVs defined for performing the on-demand CV operation
on MPLS -TP Sections. Is this intentional?

and

Co-routed bidirectional tunnel identifier:
A1-{Global_ID::Node_ID::Tunnel_Num}::Z9-{Global_ID::
      Node_ID::Tunnel_Num}::LSP_Num
Associated bidirectional tunnel identifier:
A1-{Global_ID::Node_ID::Tunnel_Num::LSP_Num}::
      Z9-{Global_ID::Node_ID::Tunnel_Num::LSP_Num}

How does Static LSP Sub-TLV address the need of two LSP_Nums of
associated bidirectional tunnel?

Am I missing something?

Thanks,
Venkat.

On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 5:50 AM, Mach Chen 
<mach(_dot_)chen(_at_)huawei(_dot_)com> wrote:
Hi,

One question about the difference of the encapsulation modes between CV and 
Route Tracing.

In Section 3, there are three encapsulation modes for on-demand CV: "LSP-Ping 
with IP encapsulation", "On-demand CV with IP encapsulation, over ACH" and 
"Non-IP based On-demand CV, using ACH", but for On-demand Route Tracing (in 
section 4), there are only two modes: "On-demand LSP Route Tracing with IP 
encapsulation" and "Non-IP based On-demand LSP Route Tracing, using ACH". 
Seems that there should be "On-demand LSP Route Tracing with IP 
encapsulation, over ACH" accordingly. What's reason behind this? Or maybe I 
missed something.

Best regards,
Mach

-----Original Message-----
From: mpls-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org 
[mailto:mpls-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of The
IESG
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 9:46 PM
To: IETF-Announce
Cc: mpls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-on-demand-cv-06.txt> (MPLS
On-demand Connectivity Verification and Route Tracing) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG
(mpls) to consider the following document:
- 'MPLS On-demand Connectivity Verification and Route Tracing'
  <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-on-demand-cv-06.txt> as a Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by 2011-08-25. Exceptionally, 
comments may be
sent to iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract

   Label Switched Path Ping (LSP-Ping) is an existing and widely
   deployed Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) mechanism
   for Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths
   (LSPs).  This document describes extensions to LSP-Ping so that LSP-
   Ping can be used for On-demand Connectivity Verification of MPLS
   Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) LSPs and Pseudowires.  This document also
   clarifies procedures to be used for processing the related OAM
   packets.  Further, it describes procedures for using LSP-Ping to
   perform Connectivity Verification and Route Tracing functions in
   MPLS-TP networks.  Finally this document updates RFC 4379 by adding a
   new address type and requesting an IANA registry.


The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-on-demand-cv/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-on-demand-cv/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>