The MPLS WG Archive

["Thomas D. Nadeau" <tnadeau@cisco.com>]

	Hi,

	A belayed reponse to your questions below.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-mpls@UU.NET [mailto:owner-mpls@UU.NET] On Behalf 
> Of kireeti@juniper.net
> Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 6:57 AM
> To: mpls@UU.NET
> Subject: LSP ping
> 
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> I just posted a new version of the LSP ping doc.  One major change:
> the L2 circuit ID FEC has been changed: a new field, the sender's PE
> address, has been added.  It was pointed out to me that the VC ID
> and the remote PE address do not uniquely identify a VC (duh!  I
> should have known that).
> 
> If anyone implemented this in the old format, please let me know.
> I kept the same FEC type, but if necessary (to avoid interop 
> problems),the old type can be deprecated and a new one allocated.

	Yes, as a matter of fact, we implemented the old FEC
type. Also, since VCCV used the old FEC type this is an
issue for existing implementations of VCCV.

> On a similar topic, the new 'FEC 129' format of L2 circuits are not
> supported.  If the definition is stable, and there is support for
> adding this, it can be done; otherwise, this will go into a follow-on
> document.

	What I suggest we do is a) change the FEC type for the L2 FEC back 
to what it was (and restore the format), or b) keep both the new 
and old one, and require that the new type use a different 
LSP ping version # if the new one is used.

	--Tom


> 
> Finally, I've incorporated some of the changes suggested (thanks, Dave
> and George!), but not all.  I will meet with folks and try to iron out
> all the remaining issues f2f, so expect one more version; after that,
> hopefully, we can put this to bed.
> 
> Kireeti.
>