Hi,
I don't see any TLVs defined for performing the on-demand CV operation
on MPLS -TP Sections. Is this intentional?
and
Co-routed bidirectional tunnel identifier:
A1-{Global_ID::Node_ID::Tunnel_Num}::Z9-{Global_ID::
Node_ID::Tunnel_Num}::LSP_Num
Associated bidirectional tunnel identifier:
A1-{Global_ID::Node_ID::Tunnel_Num::LSP_Num}::
Z9-{Global_ID::Node_ID::Tunnel_Num::LSP_Num}
How does Static LSP Sub-TLV address the need of two LSP_Nums of
associated bidirectional tunnel?
Am I missing something?
Thanks,
Venkat.
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 5:50 AM, Mach Chen <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
