Skip to main content

Label Switched Path (LSP) Self-Ping
draft-ietf-mpls-self-ping-06

Yes

(Alia Atlas)
(Deborah Brungard)

No Objection

Alvaro Retana
(Barry Leiba)
(Ben Campbell)
(Brian Haberman)
(Jari Arkko)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Stephen Farrell)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.

Alvaro Retana No Objection

(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (for -05)

                            

(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (for -05)

                            

(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -05)

                            

(Ben Campbell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -05)

                            

(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2015-10-14 for -05)
Did the WG consider updating RF C3209?

OLD:

   The node SHOULD be prepared to
   forward packets carrying the assigned label prior to sending the RESV
   message.

NEW:

   The node SHOULD be prepared to
   forward packets carrying the assigned label prior to sending the RESV
   message. When an ingress LSR receives an RESV message, it MAY/SHOULD/MUST 
   invoke the LSP Self-ping procedures [this-RFC-to-be] to verify
   that forwarding state has been installed on all downstream nodes.

(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -05)

                            

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -05)

                            

(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2015-10-12 for -05)
Bert Wijnen did the opsdir review.

(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2015-10-14 for -05)
I see that the Security Considerations section says,
  "operators SHOULD
   filter LSP Self-ping packets at network ingress points"

I think it would be helpful to have the draft explicitly state the scope for this new function - within a single operator's network is my assumption.  If that assumption is not correct, I may come back with more questions.

There was also a suggestion made int he SecDir review that you may want to consider:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?email_list=secdir

(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -05)

                            

(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2015-10-14 for -05)
I was looking at 

   o  The UDP Destination Port MUST be lsp-self-ping (8503) [IANA.PORTS]
   
and wondering why this is a MUST. Is the answer that this mechanism works within an administrative domain, so you can just tell the other end what the port number needs to be?

(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -05)