Hi all,
IMHO, the point is not about whether the Echo Reply is optional for a normal
LSP Ping, where the echo reply is totally controlled by the reply mode.
For RFC5884, since the reply mode is not specified, based on the current text,
it can be interpreted as the following two ways:
1) i
I tend to agree with Mach - and I think what Mach states is also reinforcing
the point that Carlos has made - which is that echo reply procedures are
defined by RFC 8029 - not by RFC 5884.
However, the current text suffers from much more than the ambiguity regarding
Echo Reply.
1)Second paragr
As a co-author, I can say that the intent was that the LSP ping reply be sent,
but the BFD discriminator be optional. Not sending an LSP ping reply could
lead to the LSP being torn down.
The basic idea here is to use LSP ping to bootstrap a bfd session. But the
semantics of LSP ping don't cha
> On Aug 15, 2017:11:20 AM, at 11:20 AM, Kireeti Kompella
> wrote:
>
> As a co-author, I can say that the intent was that the LSP ping reply be
> sent, but the BFD discriminator be optional. Not sending an LSP ping reply
> could lead to the LSP being torn down.
>
> The basic idea here is to
Hi Mach and Les,
thank you for your proposals.I think that the text provided by Les gives
very clear and detailed explanation. I have one suggestion to clarify
whether egress LSR MUST include BFD Discriminator TLV with local value in
the Echo reply. My understanding of the RFC 584 is that BFD Discr
I’m aware of three different behaviours from three different vendors that I
came across in the course of inter-op:
- Always respond to an LSP-Ping request carrying a BFD disc
- Never send a response to an LSP-Ping request carrying a BFD disc
- Don’t respond to the first
