Definition of Time-to-Live TLV for LSP-Ping Mechanisms
draft-boutros-mpls-lsp-ping-ttl-tlv-03
Document | Type |
Replaced Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
---|---|---|---|
Authors | Sami Boutros , Siva Sivabalan , Shaleen Saxena , George Swallow , Michael Wildt , Sam Aldrin | ||
Last updated | 2011-07-26 (Latest revision 2011-02-28) | ||
Replaced by | draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-ttl-tlv | ||
RFC stream | (None) | ||
Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
Formats | |||
Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
IESG | IESG state | Replaced by draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-ttl-tlv | |
Telechat date | (None) | ||
Responsible AD | (None) | ||
Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
LSP-Ping is a widely deployed Operation, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) mechanism in MPLS networks. However, in the present form, this mechanism is inadequate to verify connectivity of a segment of a Multi-Segment PseudoWire (MS-PW) from any node on the path of the MS-PW. Similar shortcoming is seen on a bidirectional co- routed MPLS TP LSPs. This document defines a TLV to address these shortcomings. Requirements Language The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT","SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [3].
Authors
Sami Boutros
Siva Sivabalan
Shaleen Saxena
George Swallow
Michael Wildt
Sam Aldrin
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)