The MPLS WG Archive

["M. elk" <elkou141061@hotmail.com>]

 

 

Part 3 of 3

Appreciate U clarification for below :

 

      

 

C. Page 29 , Theory of Operation

 

C1. Page 29 , In the Para "FEC stack can be more complex ........".

      For " The FEC stack would contain two sub-tlv's ,the first being a VPN IPv4 prefix,and the second being

      an LDP IPv4 prefix".

 

     To follow the way the target FEC TLV is built also the convention used in page 12 Para " say LSR X Wanted ...",

     the above sentence to be re-written as :

      "The FEC stack  would contain two sub-TLV's,the first being an LDP IPv4 prefix,and the second being

       a VPN IPv4 prefix."

 

 

C2. Page 29 , in the Para "When an MPLS echo ....".

      For " the receiver is expected to do a number of tests that verify ....".

      could the draft elaborate on what are those tests . which are applicable to the egress node and which are

       applicable  to a transient node .   

      This will help to understand/clarify  the procedure in section 4.4 "Receiving an MPLS Echo Request".  

 

C3. Page 30 , in Para "to achieve some degree .............".

      For " "Multipath Exercise" sub-TLV ".

      no such sub-TLV in this ver of the draft , may be to replace with :

     " Multipath field ,part of the downstream mapping TLV  ".

 

     For "The Ingress can then send MPLS echo request that exercise these paths".

     Could the draft elaborate how this is done .

 

C4. Page 30, in Para "To detect certain ......"

      For "will prevent a router from forwarding such packet out unlabeled interfaces".

      guess the router here is the PHP router and above could be re-written as :

      " will prevent the PHP router from forwarding such packet out unlabeled interface."

 

C5. Page 31 , Para "The sender chooses ....".

      For "However, a sender MAY choose to send a group of echo requests with the same

       sequence number to improve .............".

      Guess this is more relevant/practical in trace mode . and it could be re-written as :

      "However , in trace mode a sender MAY choose to send a group of echo requests ,having the same TTL

      value, with the same sequence number to improve .............." 

 

C6.Page 31 .Section 4.4 "Receiving an MPLS Echo Request".

       

      Beleieve despite almost 3.5 page ,this section is squeezed .

      The Section list/state procedure/algorithm but not muh reg the logic itself behind this procedure/algorithm.

      As too many clarification requested in this section , they will be sent in seperate msg

 

C7. Page 36 , section 4.6 "Receiving an MPLS Echo Reply".

      Para " if the echo reply contains downstream mappings , and X wishes to traceroute further ,...."

      for " it should copy the downstream Mappings into its next Echo Request (with TTL incremented

      by one)."  

      Why "Downstream Mappings" have an "s" . node X should copy a single DS mapping object in the

       Echo Request - the DS mapping object which correspond to the path which X need to follow- .

 

 

D. Typing Error

 

D1. Page 31 , Para "An MPLS echo Request Must have ........".

       for " the echo request SHOULD a downstream mapping TLV".

        "Have " is missing

 

D2. Page 9 , "The LDP IPv4 TLV has the following format : "

       Replace "TLV" with "Sub-TLV".

 

D3. Page 9 , " A FEC TLV which contain just ......."

       Replace "FEC" with "Target FEC Stack "

 

D4. Page 22 , "will serve to execise this path" .

      missing "c".

 

D5. Page 23 , "Null labels are explicitly inluded ..."

      missing "c".

 

Brgds  

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