Hi, One question about the difference of the encapsulation modes between CV and Route Tracing.
In Section 3, there are three encapsulation modes for on-demand CV: "LSP-Ping with IP encapsulation", "On-demand CV with IP encapsulation, over ACH" and "Non-IP based On-demand CV, using ACH", but for On-demand Route Tracing (in section 4), there are only two modes: "On-demand LSP Route Tracing with IP encapsulation" and "Non-IP based On-demand LSP Route Tracing, using ACH". Seems that there should be "On-demand LSP Route Tracing with IP encapsulation, over ACH" accordingly. What's reason behind this? Or maybe I missed something. Best regards, Mach > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of The > IESG > Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 9:46 PM > To: IETF-Announce > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-on-demand-cv-06.txt> (MPLS > On-demand Connectivity Verification and Route Tracing) to Proposed Standard > > > The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG > (mpls) to consider the following document: > - 'MPLS On-demand Connectivity Verification and Route Tracing' > <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-on-demand-cv-06.txt> as a Proposed Standard > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the > [email protected] mailing lists by 2011-08-25. Exceptionally, comments may be > sent to [email protected] instead. In either case, please retain the > beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > > Abstract > > Label Switched Path Ping (LSP-Ping) is an existing and widely > deployed Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) mechanism > for Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths > (LSPs). This document describes extensions to LSP-Ping so that LSP- > Ping can be used for On-demand Connectivity Verification of MPLS > Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) LSPs and Pseudowires. This document also > clarifies procedures to be used for processing the related OAM > packets. Further, it describes procedures for using LSP-Ping to > perform Connectivity Verification and Route Tracing functions in > MPLS-TP networks. Finally this document updates RFC 4379 by adding a > new address type and requesting an IANA registry. > > > The file can be obtained via > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-on-demand-cv/ > > IESG discussion can be tracked via > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-on-demand-cv/ > > > No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. > _______________________________________________ > mpls mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
