The MPLS WG Archive[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index] Latest MPLS Ping draft...
Hello, A few thoughts/suggestions/questions on the latest MPLS Ping draft... I'm wondering if it wouldn't be better to move the return code from the main header to the TLV header, or add a return code to the TLV header? I think there may be a couple of good reasons for doing this... o As more message types and TLV types are defined, more return codes will be required, possibly leading to overloaded meanings and a loss of scope. o If multiple TLVs are bundled in a request, a single return code may not be sufficient to return the full results of the request. I think the return code in the main header could be used for more general results, such as "no error", "unsupported version", "malformed request", "reply too big", etc, and the return code in the TLV header could be used for results specific to that TLV. Also, couldn't a (optional) "timestamp" TLV be defined rather than having this information as mandatory fields in the main header? Lastly, it's not clear to me which FEC applies to a tunnel that has been setup manually (i.e. static tunnels)? Cheers, Brian --- bhassink@hatterasnetworks.com
|
|