The MPLS WG Archive[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index] Some questions on Link Management Protocol (LMP) Draft-lang-mpls-lmp-01.txt
Hi, folks, I have some questions on the draft: Some questions on Link Management Protocol (LMP) Draft-lang-mpls-lmp-01.txt (Note that if I have missed some information which has been discussed before, please kindly point out.) 1. In the Section 4.2.1. Parameter Negotiation Let's consider the situation that both the local node and the remote node send the HelloConfig messages at the same time. If so some rules (e.g. the one according to the value of CCId) are needed to decide which HelloConfig message will be effective. 2. In the Section 4.2.3 Control channel switchover As pointed out, "Control channels may need to be switched as a result of a control channel failure or for administration purposes (e.g., routine fiber maintenance, reverting back to a primary control channel, etc.)...." and "To ensure that both nodes switch to the backup control channel successfully, both the local and remote nodes MUST transmit messages over both the primary and backup control channels until the switchover is successful. Messages on the primary control channel MUST have the ControlChannelSwitchover flag set to 1 and MUST not increment the TxSeqNum (even upon the receipt of a Hello message with the current TxSeqNum reflected in the RcvSeqNum field)...". I guess that this "control channel switchover" mechanism may not be suitable for the situation of "control channel failure", because if the primary control channel fails (e.g. terminated), it may not be able to transmit the information of "ControlChannelSwitchover flag". 4. In Section 4.2.4. Taking a link down administratively I guess that some more details are required to be looked into if something wrong happens to the control channel when two nodes are exchanging the LinkDown=1 message. 3. In Page 10, "When the Test message is detected at a node, .......and EndVerifyAck message MUST be sent." As proposed, the component channels are tested one by one. I wonder why we don't test them at the same time. By doing this, at least we can save the time consumed by the tests. Many thanks for comments! Gangxiang |
|