The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2005-Mar> msg00037



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]  
  [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index]

[mpls] Last Call on "LSP Ping"

  • From: "David Allan" <dallan@nortel.com>
  • Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 13:40:57 -0500

IMO the additions for nested implicit NULLs could be clearer....(my usual
hobby horse...;-)

In section 4.4

There is an implied pre-processing step where FECs for which implicit NULL
was offered require insertion into the stack prior to processing. IMO
explicitly describing this allows us to remove the "are assumed to
correspond..." language which is rather fuzzy....

So existing text is....

"   X matches up the labels in the received label stack with the FECs
   contained in the FEC stack.  The matching is done beginning at the
   bottom of both stacks, and working up.  For reporting purposes the
   bottom of stack is consided to be stack-depth of 1.  This is to
   establish an absolute reference for the case where the stack may have
   more labels than are in the FEC stack.

   If there are more FECs than labels, the extra FECs are assumed to
   correspond to Implicit Null Labels.  Thus for the processing below,
   there is never the case where there is a FEC with no corresponding
   label.  Further the label operation associated with an assumed Null
   Label is 'pop and continue processing'."

Proposed revision....

"   X matches up the labels in the received label stack with the FECs
   contained in the FEC stack.  The matching is done beginning at the
   bottom of both stacks, and working up.  For reporting purposes the
   bottom of stack is consided to be stack-depth of 1.  This is to
   establish an absolute reference for the case where the stack may have
   more labels than are in the FEC stack.

   Where a FEC is encountered for which an implicit NULL was offered,
   an implicit NULL is inserted a the corresponding position into the 
   received label stack. Thus for 
   the processing below, there is never the case where there is a FEC 
   with no corresponding label."

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpls-bounces@lists.ietf.org 
> [mailto:mpls-bounces@lists.ietf.org] On Behalf Of George Swallow
> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 1:44 PM
> To: mpls@ietf.org
> Subject: [mpls] Last Call on "LSP Ping"
> 
> 
> This begins a two week last call on:
> 
>         Detecting MPLS Data Plane Failures
>          <draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-08.txt>
> 
> The last call ends on March 30, 24:00 UTC.
> 
> ...George
> 
> ==============================================================
> ==========
> George Swallow             Cisco Systems                  
> (978) 936-1398
>                            1414 Massachusetts Avenue
>                            Boxborough, MA 01719
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@lists.ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls