Subject: VCCV draft and related sub-TLV options in LSP Ping

From: "Florin Balus" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 13:44:11 -0500

I have some comments related to PW OAM:

1. LSP Ping does not have a sub-TLV for the GID FEC - see 3.2 in
draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-04.txt. Just for the VC ID (sub-TLV of 9)- see
3.2.8 paragraph of the above draft. Shouldn't we have one for the Gid FEC
(i.e. 10) as it is one of the 2 FECs described in a WG doc - see 5.2.2 of
draft-ietf-pwe3-control-protocol-05.txt?

2. Also I just got a chance to check the latest version of the VCCV draft
(draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-02.txt) and I noticed that section 5.2. "MPLS Ping
Packet" says: 
"The LSP Ping header must be used as described [LSP-PING] and must also
contain the sub-TLV of 8 for PW circuits. This
 sub-TLV must be sent containing the circuit to be verified as the "VC ID"
field:"

First VC ID is identified by sub-TLV of 9 (see 3.2 in
draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-04.txt) - sub-TLV of 8 is actually associated with
the L2VPN Endpoint. Also I think that we should let this option opened to
all related PWE3 structures: VCID and GID FEC (wehenever we get the sub-TLV
for it).

Florin Balus 
Nortel Networks 
Tel: 1-613-768-4997  ESN: 398-4997
Fax: 1-613-765-4123 ESN: 395-4123
Email: mailto:[email-masked] 
DNE site: http://navigate.us.nortel.com/dne 
NPW 2003 http://www.nortelnetworks.com/npw2003

---

From: Rahul Aggarwal <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 09:54:39 -0800 (PST)

Hi Florin,

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Florin Balus wrote:

> the L2VPN Endpoint.

Thanks for catching that. We will fix it.

> Also I think that we should let this option opened to

Agreed. We will generalize the text to cover this. Thanks for your
comments !

rahul