The MPLS WG Archive

[Vanson Lim <vlim@cisco.com>]

George,

My last call comments on the lsr self-test draft sent also to the MPLS 
working group.

Regards,

-Vanson


1) Should the ipv4/6 reply-to object be combined into a single tlv with 
ipv4/6 identified by an address type field?

2) Since the replying router (LSR-D) doesn't bother with performing any 
processing should the default behavior be to return "retcode 0 (No 
return code)".

Here are the return codes which appear to be valid for use in the 
Validation Reply:

    0    No return code
    1    Malformed echo request received
    2    One or more of the TLVs was not understood

3) Should we include the reply Tos TLV and vendor private tlvs in list 
of TLVs that the MPLS Data Plane verification request can contain.   
Currently the draft lists the following as valid tlvs:

         Type #               Object
         ------               -----------
           3                  Pad
           5                  Vendor Enterprise Code
          11 (provisional)    IPv4 Reply-to Object
          12 (provisional)    IPv6 Reply-to Object

4) In Verification Reply list of valid TLVs:

- Remove "type 4" as it's no longer defined in the LSP ping draft
- Add Type 9 "Errored TLVs".
- State that "vendor private TLVs" may also be included.
- Revise the the list to reflect that the IPv4/v6 Interface label stack 
object has been combined into a single TLV.

 >>    The MPLS Data Plane Verification Reply message MAY contain
 >> the following objects:
 >>
 >>        Type #            Object
 >>       ------            -----------
 >>        3               Pad
 >>        4               Error Code
 >>        5               Vendor Enterprise Code
 >>        7               IPv4 Interface and Label Stack Object
 >>        8               IPv6 Interface and Label Stack Object




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