Subject: [mpls] Question about RFC 7439

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 13:41:05 -0000

Hi Wes and Carlos,

Embarrassingly I was the AD for this document, but I still have a question.

Section 3.5 comments about MplsLsrIdentifier.
It says that RFC 3811 "lack[s] support for IPv6 in defining MplsExtendedTunnelId
and MplsLsrIdentifier."
It also says that "[MPLS-TC] tries to resolve this gap by marking this textual
convention as obsolete."

Note that the second quote refers to just one TC.

Looking at 3811, 5036, and (most importantly) 7552, it seems to me that the LSR
Identifier is *always* a 32 bit quantity regardless of whether the LDP system is
v4-only, v4/v6, or v6-only. 

Furthermore, draft-manral-mpls-rfc3811bis (i.e., [MPLS-TC]) clearly shows no
change to MplsLsrIdentifier while marking MplsExtendedTunnelId as obsolete.

Notwithstanding that draft-manral-mpls-rfc3811bis appears to have been abandoned
in state "candidate for WG adoption", it looks to me that RFC 7439 has an error
we could call a typo.

I propose the following Errata Report...

OLD
3.5.  MIB Modules

   RFC 3811 [RFC3811] defines the textual conventions for MPLS.  These
   lack support for IPv6 in defining MplsExtendedTunnelId and
   MplsLsrIdentifier.  These textual conventions are used in the MPLS-TE
   MIB specification [RFC3812], the GMPLS-TE MIB specification [RFC4802]
   and the FRR extension [RFC6445].  "Definitions of Textual Conventions
   (TCs) for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Management" [MPLS-TC]
   tries to resolve this gap by marking this textual convention as
   obsolete.
NEW
3.5.  MIB Modules

   RFC 3811 [RFC3811] defines the textual conventions for MPLS.  These
   lack support for IPv6 in defining MplsExtendedTunnelId.  This textual
   conventions is used in the MPLS-TE MIB specification [RFC3812], the 
   GMPLS-TE MIB specification [RFC4802], and the FRR extension
   [RFC6445].  "Definitions of Textual Conventions (TCs) for Multiprotocol
   Label Switching (MPLS) Management" [MPLS-TC] tries to resolve this
   gap by marking this textual convention as obsolete.
END

Am I wrong?

Thanks,
Adrian
--
Celebrate the New Year by buying someone you love a book.
Tales from the Wood - Eighteen new fairy tales
http://www.feedaread.com/books/Tales-from-the-Wood-9781786100924.aspx
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tales-Wood-Adrian-Farrel/dp/1786100924
Or buy from me direct.

---

From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 18:14:58 +0000

Hi, Adrian,

I believe you are right, in removing ³MplsLsrIdentifier" from that
sentence. As you imply, the answer seems to be in S4 of RFC 7552, at
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7552#section-4.

Thanks,

‹ Carlos.

-----Original Message-----
From: Adrian Farrel <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: Adrian Farrel <[email-masked]>
Date: Friday, January 15, 2016 at 8:41 AM
To: Wes George <[email-masked]>, Carlos Pignataro
<[email-masked]>
Cc: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Question about RFC 7439