The MPLS WG Archive

["Amarnath Honnavalli Anantharamaiah" <amarnath.honnavalli@wipro.com>]

Hi bob,

[1] In that case why Label Release Message in 3.5.11 does not contain
Status TLV as
optional parater. For that matter, accroding to 3.4.6 last para every
message should
have Status TLV as optional.
shouldn't this be updated in the rfc.

[2] In section 3.5.11 Label Release Message and 3.5.10 Label withdraw
message - Label
TLV (optional) field is present as well as in the optional parameters
list Label TLV is
present. Is this wrong or does it have any implicit meaning..... ????

Thanks in advance
Amar

Bob Thomas wrote:

> Amar,
>
> Please review Section 3.4.6, especially the last paragraph, and
> Section 3.4.5, especially 3.4.5.1.2.
>
> Thanks,
> Bob
>
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > A.1.11. Receive Notification / Loop Detected
> >
> >    Summary:
> >
> >       When an LSR receives a Loop Detected Status Code from an LDP peer
> >       in response to a Label Request message or a Label Mapping message,
> >
> >       it behaves as if it had received a No Route notification.
> >
> >    Context:
> >
> >       See "Receive Notification / No Route".
> >
> >    Algorithm:
> >
> >       See "Receive Notification / No Route"
> >
> >    Notes:
> >
> >       1. When the Loop Detected notification is in response to a Label
> >          Request message, it arrives in a Status Code TLV in a
> >          Notification message.  When it is in response to a Label
> >          Mapping message, it arrives in a Status Code TLV in a Label
> >          Release message.
> >
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > [1] In the above section, Notes 1., It is told that When it is in
> > response to a Label mapping message, it arrives in Status Code TLV of
> > Label Release message, But Label Release message does not have Status
> > Code TLV -not even as optional parameter ?????
> >
> > Regards
> > Amar
> >