The MPLS WG Archive

[Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>]

On Tue, 15 Oct 2002, Brian Hassink wrote:

> 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...

Read section 3.4, and the documentation for value 0 for the return code.

> Also, couldn't a (optional) "timestamp" TLV be defined rather than
> having this information as mandatory fields in the main header?

Any particular reason?  One could make TLVs of all fields, not just the
timestamp fields.

> Lastly, it's not clear to me which FEC applies to a tunnel that has
> been setup manually (i.e. static tunnels)?

There isn't one at present.  One could add one, if it is deemed useful.

As for checksums, UDP does have a checksum; most underlying transport
does as well.  If some new reply mode is introduced which doesn't have
a native checksum, a checksum TLV can be added -- however, I would wait
until a concrete reason is given, so that the figh ... um, discussions
about which particular checksum methodology be used can have a concrete
basis.

Kireeti.