答复: A question about RFC5884

Hi Greg, Thanks for sharing this information! Best regards, Mach 发件人: Greg Mirsky [mailto:gregimir...@gmail.com] 发送时间: 2017年7月17日 15:34 收件人: Mach Chen 抄送: rtg-bfd@ietf.org 主题: Re: A question about RFC5884 Hi Mach, et. al, I recall that this question was discussed some time ago and the

RE: A question about RFC5884

Hi Carlos, Thanks for sharing your thoughts. IMHO, it may not be necessary to consider this LSP Ping based bootstrapping as normal LSP ping. And since both the ingress and egress LSR process the echo messages in the context of BFD session establishment, it should be no problem to process as

Re: A question about RFC5884

Hi Mach, et. al, I recall that this question was discussed some time ago and the clarification came from the original authors of the BFD protocol. The Echo Reply is optional if there's no error to report. But if the remote LER, acting as BFD node, does decide to send the Echo Reply it MUST send it

Re: A question about RFC5884

I read it as Local discriminator assigned for a BDS session is optional in echo reply that is being sent in response to LSP ping echo. I don't think RFC 5884 is not talking about echo reply being optional. Thanks Santosh P K On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 7:28 PM, Mach Chen

Re: A question about RFC5884

Hi Carlos, it would take me time to dig that old discussion. I strongly believe that the wording and the order of listing actions in this paragraph of Section 6 RFC 5884 supports my interpretation and recollection of the discussion: On receipt of the LSP Ping Echo request message, the egress

Re: A question about RFC5884

Hi Mach, On Jul 17, 2017, at 10:42 AM, Mach Chen > wrote: Hi Carlos, Thanks for sharing your thoughts. IMHO, it may not be necessary to consider this LSP Ping based bootstrapping as normal LSP ping. Would it be considered an abnormal LSP

Re: A question about RFC5884

Greg, Pointer? Thanks, Sent from my iPad On Jul 17, 2017, at 9:34 AM, Greg Mirsky > wrote: Hi Mach, et. al, I recall that this question was discussed some time ago and the clarification came from the original authors of the BFD protocol.

Re: A question about RFC5884

Greg, I am sorry but I don't see how the paragraph supports what you say. Two issues: 1. LSP Ping is based on the Normative reference's spec, RFC 4379. It cannot go against it unless it updates its behavior. The following text: "The egress LSR MAY respond with an LSP Ping Echo reply message

Re: A question about RFC5884

Hi Carlos, please find in-lined interpretation of RFC 5884 paragraph tagged GIM>>. Regards, Greg On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 8:30 AM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) < cpign...@cisco.com> wrote: > Greg, > > I am sorry but I don't see how the paragraph supports what you say. Two > issues: > > 1. LSP