[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[PWE3] Comments on draft-nitinb-mpls-tp-lsp-ping-bfd-procedures-02
- To: Nitin Bahadur <nitinb at juniper.net>, Rahul Aggarwal <rahul at juniper.net>, David Ward <dward at juniper.net>, "Thomas D. Nadeau" <tom.nadeau at bt.com>, mpls at ietf.org, mpls-tp at ietf.org, ccamp at ietf.org, pwe3 <pwe3 at ietf.org>
- Subject: [PWE3] Comments on draft-nitinb-mpls-tp-lsp-ping-bfd-procedures-02
- From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky at gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 12:59:18 -0800
- Delivered-to: pwe3 at core3.amsl.com
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=E9KOtCUMwnU/9vt7zUvgsMGXsRkSIzTlP3tS+8QheEA=; b=fE4JgG9yduekCxrXOBI7FfderTOXaMSXrLRv6x8UsYXZrOmueiQvWShTkYE8oO2wA9 DagO1P/Qac1PjLK9YO2IiuaxchycmgXg0+16OFJR/kM5rWSbG4E30sFGc7aRQ1hLiktQ S4+eS9EemkY63hXpdHAgDTMINqlNWixYBb6eQ=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=qtkeDcURC2F9VrfYhUMutADgd5mKSEXBE6lqwDNw9Z+Xa2Wgx2zf1zsCs6CMW5PUcT JWGuzDMsZgnxmBZjztVtVc2LWDEVRMUc8Bq0MakDjqJO1K+Ca0rkphn4yx36Q9zzQ1WT tjYrKpCRcHX3ynD0jySnVVpu5KcowGkJg/Zs8=
- List-archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pwe3>
- List-help: <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
- List-id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge <pwe3.ietf.org>
- List-post: <mailto:pwe3@ietf.org>
- List-subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3>, <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3>, <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Dear Authors and All,
below are my comments to the document:
- Abstract - "widely deployed" to replace "widely deployment"
- Section 2.1, Figure 2 - Section 3 RFC 5586 states that if ACH TLVs might be present then ACH TLV Header must be present. The Length of ACH TLV Header may set to zero in no ACH TLVs are actually present in the given packet. Said that I turn to figure 2 that presents LSP Ping packet with ACH format. The ACH TLV Header is not presented in the format even though presence of ACH TLVs is indicated. I think that proper LSP Ping with ACH format will look as:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MPLS Label stack |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| GAL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 0 0 1|Version| Reserved | LSP-Ping Channel Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ACH TLV Header |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ACH TLVs |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LSP-Ping payload |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
- Section 2.3 discusses optional use of Source Address TLV but the sentence "Only 1 source address TLV MUST be present in a LSP-Ping packet." may be interpreted as the Source Address TLV is mandatory. I propose to change "MUST" to "MAY" in the sentence
- Figure 3 - same comments regarding ACH TLV Header in the format as for Figure 2
Regards,
Greg