From Matt@aline-calligraphe.com Mon Oct 01 03:42:09 2007
Return-path:
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1IcFur-0003UE-Kt
for mpls-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Oct 2007 03:42:09 -0400
Received: from [82.113.202.5] (helo=[82.113.202.5])
by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1IcFun-0002E8-11
for mpls-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Oct 2007 03:42:05 -0400
Received: from laboratorio ([195.111.74.41] helo=laboratorio)
by [82.113.202.5] ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1vRMYS-000GUY-pL
for mpls-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Oct 2007 09:42:14 +0200
Message-ID: <000a01c803fe$8f803620$05ca7152@laboratorio>
From: "Matt Haese"
To:
Subject: unrid
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 09:42:04 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0007_01C8040F.53090620"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: a7d6aff76b15f3f56fcb94490e1052e4
------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C8040F.53090620
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Good day mpls-archive
Alert to all investors!
Look at D-M-X-C!
5-day price: ~$0.50
Check it at 31.09.2007
unsriges
unverzug
uoc-suos
unterbau
------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C8040F.53090620
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Good day mpls-archive
Alert to all investors!
Look at D-M-X-C!
5-day price: ~$0.50
Check it at 31.09.2007
unsriges
unverzug
uoc-suos
unterbau
------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C8040F.53090620--
From rnewton@hedley.ca Mon Oct 01 15:15:41 2007
Return-path:
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1IcQk1-0004S4-FK
for mpls-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Oct 2007 15:15:41 -0400
Received: from [200.29.170.211] (helo=qjsn)
by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1IcQjw-0001KP-SK
for mpls-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Oct 2007 15:15:38 -0400
Received: (qmail 17193 invoked from network); Mon, 1 Oct 2007 15:15:57 -0400
Received: from unknown (HELO eodcc) (188.112.228.123)
by qjsn with SMTP; Mon, 1 Oct 2007 15:15:57 -0400
Message-ID: <001f01c8045f$7eb82260$7be470bc@eodcc>
From:
To:
Subject: today is the bext day for this
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 15:15:57 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
format=flowed;
charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4131.1600
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4131.1600
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 08170828343bcf1325e4a0fb4584481c
7 Months after release, the Fearless 28 celebrates nearly $10 Million in
Orders
Fearless International
FRLE
Current: $0.23
With nearly $10 Million in orders for the new Porsche Design Studio
Yacht, the Fearless Production facility is at 75% capacity. This new
release is one of 5 that will range from 28 up to 150 feet of pure
luxury. The "Fearless 44", the next in the design series, is expected to
have its designs released to the market any day. This company is going
to bust out in the market. Reap the benefits and grab this fast on
Monday.
From mpls-bounces@lists.ietf.org Mon Oct 01 16:13:36 2007
Return-path:
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1IcRVa-0000hJ-V8; Mon, 01 Oct 2007 16:04:50 -0400
Received: from mpls by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43)
id 1IaexU-00089z-6E
for mpls-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Sep 2007 18:02:16 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IaexT-00089r-T0
for mpls@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Sep 2007 18:02:15 -0400
Received: from bgp.nu ([64.27.28.76])
by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IaexN-00024p-Nc
for mpls@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Sep 2007 18:02:15 -0400
Received: from localhost (bgp.nu [64.27.28.76])
by bgp.nu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2578B53E1ED;
Wed, 26 Sep 2007 18:01:49 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at bgp.nu
Received: from bgp.nu ([64.27.28.76])
by localhost (bgp.nu [64.27.28.76]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with LMTP id m21wkD+6NWOw; Wed, 26 Sep 2007 18:01:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [172.16.13.200] (dsl093-003-111.det1.dsl.speakeasy.net
[66.93.3.111]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by bgp.nu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63F7A53E1EC;
Wed, 26 Sep 2007 18:01:37 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3)
References: <1BE7AC0C-9229-4BC5-B968-74F8614D4A57@juniper.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <8711F57F-DAA0-44E9-A182-C944E484F2D5@bgp.nu>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: "John G. Scudder"
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 18:00:16 -0400
To: mpls@lists.ietf.org,
ospf@ietf.org,
isis-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3)
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 93238566e09e6e262849b4f805833007
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 16:04:49 -0400
Cc:
Subject: [mpls] Fwd: Working Group Last Call for "Basic Specification for IP
Fast-Reroute: Loop-free Alternates"
X-BeenThere: mpls@lists.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Archive:
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
Errors-To: mpls-bounces@lists.ietf.org
FYI for those not subscribed to rtgwg.
--John
Begin forwarded message:
> From: "John G. Scudder"
> Date: September 26, 2007 3:47:32 PM GMT-04:00
> To: rtgwg@ietf.org
> Subject: Working Group Last Call for "Basic Specification for IP
> Fast-Reroute: Loop-free Alternates"
>
> Folks,
>
> The authors have indicated they're ready for WGLC on "Basic
> Specification for IP Fast-Reroute: Loop-free Alternates" (draft-
> ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-spec-base-09). You can access the draft at http://
> www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-spec-base-09.txt.
>
> Please send comments to the list. The deadline for comments is
> October 12.
>
> --John
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
From Micheline_GRANDA@spitzke-kg.de Mon Oct 01 19:57:16 2007
Return-path:
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1IcV8W-00028U-Gf
for mpls-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Oct 2007 19:57:16 -0400
Received: from [200.115.204.83] (helo=pc83.telecentro.com.ar)
by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1IcV8O-0007An-VQ
for mpls-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Oct 2007 19:57:13 -0400
Received: from abm-2dbfb86672f ([158.179.2.126]:20014 "EHLO abm-2dbfb86672f"
smtp-auth: TLS-CIPHER: TLS-PEER-CN1: )
by pc83.telecentro.com.ar with ESMTP id S22LWEBXRZNXCXQL (ORCPT
);
Mon, 1 Oct 2007 20:57:20 -0300
Message-ID: <000901c80486$c65cabf0$53cc73c8@abm2dbfb86672f>
From: "Micheline GRANDA"
To:
Subject: aniline0
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 20:57:08 -0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0009_01C8046D.A10F73F0"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 02ec665d00de228c50c93ed6b5e4fc1a
------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C8046D.A10F73F0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
CWTE: C'Watre International, Inc
Trade Alert. CWTE just announced trading on the OTC. CWTE has the =
potential to return 5 times your money with this tight capital =
structure.
This means the stock can see $1.50 when news is realesed. CWTE has a =
womens line of ageless cosmetics that is overwhelming the celebrity
industry. Keep an eye for news to hit the market and create a frenzy in =
this stock. When investors find out who's using it, the stock could
go well beyond our target.
mpls-archive, contact your broker NOW for CWTE!
andrious
anneivwe
annahmev
an'egiro
annuli0
anoggnam
------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C8046D.A10F73F0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
CWTE: C'Watre International, Inc
Trade Alert. CWTE just announced trading on =
the OTC. C
WTE has the potential to return 5 times your money with this tight =
capital structure.
This means the stock can see $1.50 when news =
is=20
realesed. CWTE has a womens line of ageless cosmetics that is =
overwhelming the celebrity
industry. Keep an eye for news to hit the =
market and=20
create a frenzy in this stock. When investors find out who's using it, =
the=20
stock could
go well beyond our target.
mpls-archive, contact your broker NOW for =
CWTE!
andrious
anneivwe
annahmev
an'egiro
annuli0
anoggnam
------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C8046D.A10F73F0--
From jaxposeidonmssiq@poseidonms.com Mon Oct 01 20:23:31 2007
Return-path:
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1IcVXu-0000lL-Rx; Mon, 01 Oct 2007 20:23:30 -0400
Received: from 20150122098.user.veloxzone.com.br ([201.50.122.98] helo=uelton-hkdgby8k)
by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1IcVXp-0007gY-To; Mon, 01 Oct 2007 20:23:27 -0400
Received: from [201.50.122.98] by mail.poseidonms.com; Mon, 31 Sep 2007 14:33:45 -0300
Date: Mon, 31 Sep 2007 14:33:45 -0300
From: "James Corcoran"
X-Mailer: The Bat! (v3.71.01) Educational
Reply-To: jaxposeidonmssiq@poseidonms.com
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Message-ID: <471527218.57641968875290@poseidonms.com>
To: isms-request@lists.ietf.org
Subject: Olny this 5 days special price on pharma for you dear customer
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----------FB252CD318FB01"
X-Spam-Score: 3.8 (+++)
X-Scan-Signature: bb8f917bb6b8da28fc948aeffb74aa17
------------FB252CD318FB01
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hello!!!
Incomparable proposal for you Our Dear Client!!!
At these five days only for our byers unthinkable offer!!!
On all cures you need!!!
Fill your life with colors of joy!!!
http://dictionaryletter.cn/
Best wishes,
Online association of druggists
------------FB252CD318FB01
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-2
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hello!!!
Incomparable proposal for you Our Dear Client!!!
At these five days only for our byers unthinkable offer!!!
On all cures you need!!!
Fill your life with colors of joy!!!
http://dictionaryletter.cn/
Best wishes,
Online association of druggists
------------FB252CD318FB01--
From reed628@waynnsongundogs.co.uk Mon Oct 01 20:50:24 2007
Return-path:
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1IcVxw-0001qS-3G
for mpls-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Oct 2007 20:50:24 -0400
Received: from [200.70.44.12] (helo=host12.advance.com.ar)
by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1IcVxr-0008Cp-Hy
for mpls-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Oct 2007 20:50:21 -0400
Received: from xfd-t0yo65v2pgt ([168.151.123.2] helo=xfd-t0yo65v2pgt)
by host12.advance.com.ar ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1TNazk-000QIB-gY
for mpls-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Oct 2007 21:51:08 -0300
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 21:50:29 -0300
To: mpls-archive@lists.ietf.org
From: "reed Seim"
Subject: w-shaded
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 1ac7cc0a4cd376402b85bc1961a86ac2
CWTE: C'Watre International, Inc
Trade Alert. CWTE just announced trading on the OTC. CWTE has the potential to return 5 times your money with this tight capital structure.
This means the stock can see $1.50 when news is realesed. CWTE has a womens line of ageless cosmetics that is overwhelming the celebrity
industry. Keep an eye for news to hit the market and create a frenzy in this stock. When investors find out who's using it, the stock could
go well beyond our target.
mpls-archive, contact your broker NOW for CWTE!
wisps
wrive
witchelm
wilderma
wrestler
wireboun
From Vanmoorleghempkdsi@arnallgoldengregory.com Tue Oct 02 05:47:10 2007
Return-path:
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1IceLO-0003xI-IP
for mpls-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Oct 2007 05:47:10 -0400
Received: from host7-78-static.90-82-b.business.telecomitalia.it ([82.90.78.7])
by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1IceLN-0003j8-58
for mpls-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Oct 2007 05:47:10 -0400
Received: from Ordine-01 ([129.189.120.88]:26049 "EHLO Ordine-01"
smtp-auth: TLS-CIPHER: TLS-PEER-CN1: )
by [82.90.78.7] with ESMTP id S22UKHTMSZLZBYHZ (ORCPT
);
Tue, 2 Oct 2007 11:47:22 +0200
Message-ID: <000601c804d9$320fcdd0$074e5a52@Ordine01>
From: "Dewayne Vanmoorleghem"
To:
Subject: asuuykok
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 11:47:07 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0006_01C804E9.F5989DD0"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028
X-Spam-Score: 2.9 (++)
X-Scan-Signature: 39bd8f8cbb76cae18b7e23f7cf6b2b9f
------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C804E9.F5989DD0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Crash! Boom! Bang!
C.W.T.E has the potential to return 500% to your money within 7 trading =
days.
Hot news released today! Check this out.
mpls-archive, call ur broker NOW.
------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C804E9.F5989DD0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Crash! Boom! Bang!
C.W.T.E has the potential to return 500% to =
your money=20
within 7 trading days.
Hot news released today! Check this =
out.
mpls-archive, call ur broker=20
NOW.
------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C804E9.F5989DD0--
From cristi@andreaundklaus.de Tue Oct 02 07:04:43 2007
Return-path:
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1IcfYR-0004H9-S9
for mpls-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Oct 2007 07:04:43 -0400
Received: from [151.77.125.8] (helo=[151.77.125.8])
by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1IcfYM-0005N5-7r
for mpls-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Oct 2007 07:04:39 -0400
Received: from pc ([106.107.69.195] helo=pc)
by [151.77.125.8] ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1JMWHQ-000PBT-Lj
for mpls-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 3 Oct 2007 13:08:15 +0200
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 13:07:57 +0200
From: "Elfaz cristi"
Reply-To: "Elfaz cristi"
Message-ID: <876453770931.725288097318@andreaundklaus.de>
To:
Subject: luangiua
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
format=flowed;
charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
X-Spam-Score: 4.0 (++++)
X-Scan-Signature: 7aefe408d50e9c7c47615841cb314bed
Crash! Boom! Bang!
C.W.T.E has the potential to return 500% to your money within 7 trading days.
Hot news released today! Check this out.
mpls-archive, call ur broker NOW.
From Buutatevosian@kartel-group.ru Tue Oct 02 08:48:38 2007
Return-path:
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1IchB0-00015v-3n
for mpls-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Oct 2007 08:48:38 -0400
Received: from pd9e12cd1.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([217.225.44.209])
by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1IchAp-0002br-BY
for mpls-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Oct 2007 08:48:27 -0400
Received: from Bluelight
by kartel-group.ru with ASMTP id E7A0646B
for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2007 14:48:55 +0200
Received: from Bluelight ([160.111.150.3])
by kartel-group.ru with ESMTP id 801939D759CC
for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2007 14:48:55 +0200
Message-ID: <000601c804f2$876b6be0$d12ce1d9@Bluelight>
From: "Buu tatevosian"
To: mpls-archive@lists.ietf.org
Subject: pelycolo
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 14:48:28 +0200
Message-ID: <000601c804f2$876b6be0$d12ce1d9@Bluelight>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962
X-Spam-Score: 4.1 (++++)
X-Scan-Signature: d17f825e43c9aed4fd65b7edddddec89
C-rash! Boo.m! B+a n,g+!
C.W.T.+E h'a*s t'h+e po,tent_ial to ret+urn 5-0+0_% to y'o.u r mone,y wit-hin 7 tradi,ng d,a+y*s,.
H_o t n+e,w,s release*'d today,! C-heck t-h'i's o,u t,.
mp.ls-archive,, c*a-l,l ur br.oker N O+W,.
From mpls-bounces@lists.ietf.org Tue Oct 02 08:57:58 2007
Return-path:
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1IchDj-0005KW-7j; Tue, 02 Oct 2007 08:51:27 -0400
Received: from mpls by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43)
id 1IchDh-0005G4-1z
for mpls-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Oct 2007 08:51:25 -0400
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IchDg-0005Fv-Nb
for mpls@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Oct 2007 08:51:24 -0400
Received: from smtp.testbed.se ([80.86.78.228] helo=fw.testbed.se)
by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IchDg-0002hf-CX
for mpls@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Oct 2007 08:51:24 -0400
Received: from MailerDaemon by fw.testbed.se with local-bsmtp (Exim 4.63)
(envelope-from ) id 1IchDf-0000ZX-4S
for mpls@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Oct 2007 14:51:23 +0200
Received: from gw.imc.kth.se ([193.10.152.67]:3516 helo=[172.16.2.49])
by fw.testbed.se with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.63)
(envelope-from )
id 1IchDc-0000ZO-PP; Tue, 02 Oct 2007 14:51:20 +0200
Message-ID: <47023EBF.6030000@pi.se>
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 14:51:11 +0200
From: Loa Andersson
Organization: Acreo AB
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: mpls@ietf.org
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A0B0202.47023ECA.001A,ss=1,fgs=0
X-cff-SpamScore: 0(/)
X-cff-SpamReport: ----- ----- Message is unknown to the spam scanner.
X-cff-LastScanner: footer
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 798b2e660f1819ae38035ac1d8d5e3ab
Cc: David Ward , Ross Callon ,
Seisho Yasukawa
Subject: [mpls] draft-yasukawa-mpls-scaling-analysis-04.txt acceepted as wg
document
X-BeenThere: mpls@lists.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Archive:
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
Errors-To: mpls-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Working group,
the poll on draft-yasukawa-mpls-scaling-analysis-04.txt shows
good support for making it a mpls wg document.
Could the authors please re-publish it as:
draft-ietf-mpls-te-scaling-analysis-00.txt
Loa and George
--
Loa Andersson
Principal Networking Architect
Acreo AB phone: +46 8 632 77 14
Isafjordsgatan 22 mobile: +46 739 81 21 64
Kista, Sweden email: loa.andersson@acreo.se
loa@pi.se
This email was Anti Virus checked by Astaro Security Gateway. http://www.astaro.com
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
From Lathuiliere.Muramatsu@ha5oj.hu Tue Oct 02 17:08:16 2007
Return-path:
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1IcoyW-0000WN-Bj
for mpls-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Oct 2007 17:08:16 -0400
Received: from cpc2-heck4-0-0-cust530.hudd.cable.ntl.com ([81.105.122.19])
by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1IcoyV-0000mk-T2
for mpls-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Oct 2007 17:08:16 -0400
Received: from MasterBedroom ([124.194.79.55] helo=MasterBedroom)
by cpc2-heck4-0-0-cust530.hudd.cable.ntl.com ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1Reraf-000XDF-to
for mpls-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 2 Oct 2007 22:09:48 +0100
Message-ID: <000e01c80538$79fefa80$137a6951@MasterBedroom>
From: "Lathuiliere Muramatsu"
To:
Subject: eiteille
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 22:09:10 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0003_01C80540.DBC36280"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028
X-Spam-Score: 4.4 (++++)
X-Scan-Signature: 97adf591118a232206bdb5a27b217034
------=_NextPart_000_0003_01C80540.DBC36280
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
http://www.shapphic.com/
Good evening mpls-archive
Ever felt like you don't measure up?
Lathuiliere Muramatsu
------=_NextPart_000_0003_01C80540.DBC36280
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
http://www.shapphic.com/
Good evening mpls-archive
Ever felt like you don't measure =
up?
Lathuiliere =
Muramatsu
------=_NextPart_000_0003_01C80540.DBC36280--
From Mackey@aag.thetrustedresource.com Tue Oct 02 20:20:16 2007
Return-path:
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1IcryK-0007Tp-0L
for mpls-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Oct 2007 20:20:16 -0400
Received: from host217-211-static.52-88-b.business.telecomitalia.it ([88.52.211.217])
by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1IcryJ-00052n-Bf
for mpls-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Oct 2007 20:20:15 -0400
Received: by 10.231.43.98 with SMTP id BeVvKDVLfiIEG;
Wed, 3 Oct 2007 02:21:27 +0200 (GMT)
Received: by 192.168.192.135 with SMTP id EpdMIEwtYNbpBS.6128691359179;
Wed, 3 Oct 2007 02:21:25 +0200 (GMT)
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 02:21:22 +0200
From: "Loik Mackey"
Reply-To: "Loik Mackey"
Message-ID: <516251206675.754231850713@aag.thetrustedresource.com>
To:
Subject: ahnoron
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
format=flowed;
charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
X-Spam-Score: 3.9 (+++)
X-Scan-Signature: 8ac499381112328dd60aea5b1ff596ea
Yo man mpls-archive
recommended by pornstars since 1999, this is there advantage
Loik Mackey
http://www.coycerca.com/
From Alpo321@holmesmail.com Tue Oct 02 21:18:52 2007
Return-path:
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1Icst2-0004HL-To
for mpls-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Oct 2007 21:18:52 -0400
Received: from 208-5-246-201.adsl.terra.cl ([201.246.5.208] helo=[201.222.198.241])
by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1Icst0-0006Ic-88
for mpls-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Oct 2007 21:18:50 -0400
Received: by 10.148.132.143 with SMTP id aqqhWgBsQBWky;
Tue, 2 Oct 2007 21:18:58 -0400 (GMT)
Received: by 192.168.51.217 with SMTP id rgFgMZOHUrboHP.2778912133014;
Tue, 2 Oct 2007 21:18:56 -0400 (GMT)
Message-ID: <000501c8055b$5ccd4b60$f1c6dec9@Casita>
From: "Alpo Forkin"
To:
Subject: geduimd
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 21:18:53 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0005_01C80539.D5BBAB60"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028
X-Spam-Score: 4.7 (++++)
X-Scan-Signature: 97adf591118a232206bdb5a27b217034
------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C80539.D5BBAB60
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
http://www.coximnews.com/
Morning mpls-archive
Ooze confidence in every situation with your bigger and better penis
Alpo Forkin
------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C80539.D5BBAB60
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
http://www.coximnews.com/=
DIV>
Morning mpls-archive
Ooze confidence in every situation with your =
bigger and=20
better penis
Alpo Forkin
------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C80539.D5BBAB60--
From Lyssa@inspiredbysweetpea.com Wed Oct 03 01:35:41 2007
Return-path:
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1IcwtZ-00067V-Mg
for mpls-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 01:35:41 -0400
Received: from host110-116-static.106-82-b.business.telecomitalia.it ([82.106.116.110])
by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1IcwtW-00043A-6M
for mpls-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 01:35:38 -0400
Received: from lcdpc
by inspiredbysweetpea.com with ASMTP id D4E59DA8
for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2007 07:36:05 +0200
Received: from lcdpc ([175.193.149.47])
by inspiredbysweetpea.com with ESMTP id 56928FAF2D8D
for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2007 07:36:05 +0200
Message-ID: <000901c8057f$3d9e0210$6e746a52@lcdpc>
From: "Lyssa cakir"
To: mpls-archive@lists.ietf.org
Subject: evlahsdi
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 07:35:43 +0200
Message-ID: <000901c8057f$3d9e0210$6e746a52@lcdpc>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962
X-Spam-Score: 3.1 (+++)
X-Scan-Signature: 8ac499381112328dd60aea5b1ff596ea
Nice to meet you mpls-archive
life is too short to be small
Lyssa cakir
http://cqdiai.com/
From kjc@ms27.hinet.net Wed Oct 03 02:14:41 2007
Return-path:
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1IcxVJ-0005Tt-Cj
for mpls-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 02:14:41 -0400
Received: from amontpellier-152-1-97-211.w86-206.abo.wanadoo.fr ([86.206.239.211])
by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1IcxVI-00051o-Sc
for mpls-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 02:14:41 -0400
Received: (qmail 20466 invoked from network); Wed, 3 Oct 2007 08:14:16 +0200
Received: from unknown (HELO jvdb) (116.147.105.163)
by AMontpellier-152-1-97-211.w86-206.abo.wanadoo.fr with SMTP; Wed, 3 Oct 2007 08:14:16 +0200
Message-ID: <47033338.1070606@ms27.hinet.net>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 08:14:16 +0200
From:
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: mpls-archive@lists.ietf.org
Subject: final docs
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 3.5 (+++)
X-Scan-Signature: 8ac499381112328dd60aea5b1ff596ea
Whole world checks out new yacht.
Fearless International (F R L E . O B) $0.20
Fearless already taking in ten Million in orders. Check out FR LE
From mpls-bounces@lists.ietf.org Wed Oct 03 02:58:53 2007
Return-path:
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1Icy4K-0004gr-C2; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 02:50:52 -0400
Received: from mpls by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43)
id 1Icy4I-0004gP-W6
for mpls-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 02:50:51 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Icy4E-0004bO-Lp
for mpls@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 02:50:46 -0400
Received: from 62.66.5446.static.theplanet.com ([70.84.102.98]
helo=petition.myonlinepetition.com)
by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Icy4D-0001Y1-HJ
for mpls@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 02:50:46 -0400
Received: from simplyra by petition.myonlinepetition.com with local (Exim 4.68)
(envelope-from )
id 1Icy48-0001Ol-Cm
for mpls@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 12:20:40 +0530
To: mpls@lists.ietf.org
From: sanjay.chalikar@gmail.com
Message-Id:
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 12:20:40 +0530
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse,
please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - petition.myonlinepetition.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - lists.ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [32003 32002] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - petition.myonlinepetition.com
X-Source: /usr/bin/php
X-Source-Args: /usr/bin/php importer.php
X-Source-Dir: myonlinepetition.com:/public_html/sms2india
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 01485d64dfa90b45a74269b3ca9d5574
Subject: [mpls] Invitation from sanjay.chalikar@gmail.com
X-BeenThere: mpls@lists.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Archive:
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
Errors-To: mpls-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Hi mpls@lists.ietf.org, sanjay.chalikar@gmail.com would like you to take a look at this site! http://www.octazen.com
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
From Terryupwindpupil@toolkit.com Wed Oct 03 03:44:37 2007
Return-path:
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1IcyuK-0006fa-HL
for mpls-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 03:44:36 -0400
Received: from fyz022.ust.hk ([143.89.244.155])
by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1IcyuK-0007Oc-2n
for mpls-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 03:44:36 -0400
Received: from chin
by toolkit.com with SMTP id vV6y57Vs35
for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2007 15:42:38 -0800
From: "Terry Dickey"
To:
Subject: Fwd: Thanks, we accepted your application
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: cf4fa59384e76e63313391b70cd0dd25
Finding rates low enough to suit is never an easy task. What if I were to tell you that there actually is a simple way to find the a lower rate for you? What if I told you that the rates were lower than any other one out there? You would of course be doubtful of what I said, but why not check for yourself?
http://contriculation.com/
Lenders should be offering you the best deals and not make you search for them.
Stop fighting for lenders let them fight for you! Make them work for your business by giving you the lowest rates around!
If you want a lower interest rate,and peace of mind then..
http://contriculation.com/
Bad credit seems to be a major deterrent for lenders these days but again, what if there was somewhere out there who didn't care for your credit status? Low credit rating? No problem.
http://contriculation.com/
Viola Cartwright
From puqpuzzlekistefos@puzzlekiste.de Wed Oct 03 05:16:26 2007
Return-path:
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1Id0LB-0007vf-3A; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 05:16:25 -0400
Received: from [81.213.146.85] (helo=dsl.static8121314685.ttnet.net.tr)
by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1Id0L7-0005TY-5g; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 05:16:23 -0400
Received: from [81.213.146.85] by mx01.kundenserver.de; Wed, 33 Sep 2007 04:26:50 +0200
Date: Wed, 33 Sep 2007 04:26:50 +0200
From: "Conrad Pate"
X-Mailer: The Bat! (v2.00.8) Personal
Reply-To: puqpuzzlekistefos@puzzlekiste.de
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Message-ID: <664853281.47426977250837@puzzlekiste.de>
To: isms@lists.ietf.org
Subject: Customers alert, new pharma site is realised!
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----------930555555C9AD32"
X-Spam-Score: 1.8 (+)
X-Scan-Signature: 4adaf050708fb13be3316a9eee889caa
------------930555555C9AD32
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Ultimately new Internet web-site is released!!!
*Mankind’s Health
*Anti-depressants
*Pain Ease
*Women's health
*Anti-diabetics
*High Blood Pressure/Cholesterin problems
*Anti-Allergic/Asphyxia medicinal remedies
*Anti Intragastric Acidity
As our respective clients now you can first to anybody try our pleasing prices!!
FDA, CPA verified, Visa proved.
Worm this out at once!!!
http://gonedetermine.cn/
------------930555555C9AD32
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-2
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Ultimately new Internet web-site is released!!!
*Mankind’s Health
*Anti-depressants
*Pain Ease
*Women's health
*Anti-diabetics
*High Blood Pressure/Cholesterin problems
*Anti-Allergic/Asphyxia medicinal remedies
*Anti Intragastric Acidity
As our respective clients now you can first to anybody try our pleasing prices!!
FDA, CPA verified, Visa proved.
Worm this out at once!!!
http://gonedetermine.cn/
------------930555555C9AD32--
From mpls-bounces@lists.ietf.org Wed Oct 03 06:37:50 2007
Return-path:
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1Id1Ty-0006Cr-2x; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 06:29:34 -0400
Received: from mpls by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43)
id 1Id1Tw-0006Bn-8W
for mpls-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 06:29:32 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Id1Tv-00067d-UF
for mpls@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 06:29:31 -0400
Received: from heisenberg.zen.co.uk ([212.23.3.141])
by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Id1Tm-0007mn-Kb
for mpls@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 06:29:27 -0400
Received: from [88.96.235.138] (helo=cortex.aria-networks.com)
by heisenberg.zen.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Id1Sx-0006Gp-32
for mpls@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 10:28:31 +0000
Received: from your029b8cecfe ([81.140.15.32] RDNS failed) by
cortex.aria-networks.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959);
Wed, 3 Oct 2007 11:28:30 +0100
Message-ID: <01dc01c805a8$213eaf60$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe>
From: "Adrian Farrel"
To: "shilpa goel" , ,
References:
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 11:28:08 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Oct 2007 10:28:30.0225 (UTC)
FILETIME=[2454F010:01C805A8]
X-Originating-Heisenberg-IP: [88.96.235.138]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: bb8f917bb6b8da28fc948aeffb74aa17
Cc:
Subject: [mpls] Re: ping for static LSPs?
X-BeenThere: mpls@lists.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Adrian Farrel
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Archive:
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
Errors-To: mpls-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Shilpa,
Since no-one else answered, I'll bite.
> I have a query regarding ping support for static LSPs.
>
> Firstly, is it supported?
I don't believe that there is anything in the definition of LSP Ping that
makes the use of a control plane to establish the LSP mandatory.
> Secondly, if Control Plane is implementing LSR MIB (which does not hold
> any
> information about FECs) to use for setting up of static LSPs, then when an
> echo request packet (with FEC TLV) is received by Data Plane, then how can
> one verify DP against CP?
I don't think the control plane implements the LSR MIB. That would be "the
LSR". But, anyway...
The deeper question you are asking is: how is the FEC-To-NHLFE table built
at an LSR through management plane activity?
You are correct that the LSR MIB module (RFC3813) only defines how to set up
the LFIB.
You should look at RFC3814 to see how the FEC-To-NHLFE table can be built
using a MIB module.
You may want to look at RFC4221 to see an overview of how all of the MPLS
MIB modules fit together.
Cheers,
Adrian
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
From mpls-bounces@lists.ietf.org Wed Oct 03 07:11:15 2007
Return-path:
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1Id25d-0001Zd-5P; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 07:08:29 -0400
Received: from mpls by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43)
id 1Id25b-0001Wg-Ei
for mpls-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 07:08:27 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Id25b-0001Rq-51
for mpls@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 07:08:27 -0400
Received: from pmesmtp01.wcom.com ([199.249.20.1] helo=pmesmtp01.mci.com)
by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Id25Q-0000M5-Ua
for mpls@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 07:08:23 -0400
Received: from cmr0.ash.ops.us.uu.net ([198.5.241.38])
by firewall.verizonbusiness.com (Iplanet MTA 5.2)
with ESMTP id <0JPC0039Y1L3J7@firewall.verizonbusiness.com> for
mpls@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 11:07:56 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from mail-control.ash.ops.us.uu.net by cmr0.ash.ops.us.uu.net with
ESMTP (peer crosschecked as: mail-control.ash.ops.us.uu.net
[153.39.10.50]) id QQxigy13036; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 11:07:38 +0000 (GMT)
Received: by mail-control.ash.ops.us.uu.net id QQxigy23070 for mpls-outgoing;
Wed, 03 Oct 2007 11:07:20 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from imr1.ash.ops.us.uu.net by mail-control.ash.ops.us.uu.net with
ESMTP (peer crosschecked as: imr1.ash.ops.us.uu.net [153.39.43.46])
id QQxigy23063 for ; Wed,
03 Oct 2007 11:07:03 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from pmismtp03.mcilink.com by imr1.ash.ops.us.uu.net with ESMTP
(peer crosschecked as: pmismtp03.mcilink.com [166.37.158.163])
id l93B71h3010686 for ;
Wed, 03 Oct 2007 11:07:01 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from pmismtp03.mcilink.com ([127.0.0.1])
by pmismtp03.mcilink.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.08
(built Sep
22 2005)) with SMTP id <0JPC007QQ1JPIS@pmismtp03.mcilink.com> for
mpls@uu.net; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 11:07:01 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from pmmspam01.mcilink.com ([166.37.156.161])
by pmismtp03.mcilink.com
(iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.08 (built Sep 22 2005))
with ESMTP id <0JPC0080O1JPEE@pmismtp03.mcilink.com> for mpls@uu.net;
Wed, 03 Oct 2007 11:07:01 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from pmesmtp02.mci.com (pmesmtp02.mci.com [199.249.20.2])
by pmmspam01.mcilink.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id
l93B6sbj006091 for
; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 11:07:00 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from pmesmtp02.mci.com ([127.0.0.1]) by firewall.verizonbusiness.com
(Iplanet MTA 5.2) with SMTP id
<0JPC00K7V1JL8C@firewall.verizonbusiness.com>
for mpls@uu.net; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 11:06:58 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from fk-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.128.185])
by firewall.verizonbusiness.com (Iplanet MTA 5.2)
with ESMTP id <0JPC00K0W1JKCW@firewall.verizonbusiness.com> for
mpls@uu.net; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 11:06:57 +0000 (GMT)
Received: by fk-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id 22so4268754fkq for
; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 04:06:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.82.156.12 with SMTP id d12mr7048082bue.1191409614685; Wed,
03 Oct 2007 04:06:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.82.152.14 with HTTP; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 04:06:53 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 16:36:53 +0530
From: shilpa goel
In-reply-to:
To: mpls-ops@mplsrc.com, mpls@lists.ietf.org, mpls@UU.NET
Message-id:
MIME-version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com;
s=beta;
h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;
bh=bBLGPvYAWPnsieDDLC3a4DWbDcLxnslWZxG7/gf1lxA=;
b=O08sTHQBHWcW4ZxeBnSR/Xs8dVjfo4hqEVxWWLN3NKvW5Nbr3p7B82BNvmFYW5upvX5ol3PZgKYRNEfs6zv7FrTj2BUEEM+HsXFeac9G6Rm3xYK/O34Ojj5d1sSnxcYqM91E3kz3TB0XVEEq401QGWRHlJgjBlSv9uieCo1kY2A=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta;
h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;
b=MUEMbsX1uY5DmZUWnYUwJSv/DFhTTt5t1NErNXcXqzMVBELFkzZQB8qHDtXvUapwtbv7cNyJaaK5Ens0KvbwBb+EYKnekTqN/xT0vumav/pLu7OJz2xvedZ74x3IPVIelBKuoMm3jCfKPsrrK7WgqFLAVwjnD2nJGvfyuRTJpTU=
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0
ipscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam
adjust=0
reason=mlx engine=3.1.0-0708230000 definitions=main-0710030020
References:
<01dc01c805a8$213eaf60$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 10ba05e7e8a9aa6adb025f426bef3a30
Cc:
Subject: [mpls] Re: ping for static LSPs?
X-BeenThere: mpls@lists.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Archive:
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0855572622=="
Errors-To: mpls-bounces@lists.ietf.org
--===============0855572622==
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_Part_20731_20705778.1191409613994"
------=_Part_20731_20705778.1191409613994
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: shilpa goel
Date: Oct 3, 2007 4:20 PM
Subject: Re: ping for static LSPs?
To: Adrian Farrel
Adrian,
What I meant was that suppose MPLS DP is implementing FTN MIB while MPLS
CP is implementing LSR MIB. In this scenario, when a static LSP is set up,
LSR MIB is configured in the CP with the cross-connect/LSP. This cross
connect information is passed to DP. FTN MIB is then configured in DP with
an FEC to this cross-connect/LSP mapping.
Now consider such a LSP is pinged. When it reached the egress node, it is
required that DP passes this packet to CP for "Egress FEC validation"
(section 4.4, point 6 of RFC 4379). My doubt was that how can CP verify this
ping packet when it does not have any such "FEC" information in its LSR MIB
for this cross-connect/LSP.
thanks and regards,
Shilpa
On 10/3/07, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>
> Shilpa,
>
> Since no-one else answered, I'll bite.
>
> > I have a query regarding ping support for static LSPs.
> >
> > Firstly, is it supported?
>
> I don't believe that there is anything in the definition of LSP Ping that
> makes the use of a control plane to establish the LSP mandatory.
>
> > Secondly, if Control Plane is implementing LSR MIB (which does not hold
> > any
> > information about FECs) to use for setting up of static LSPs, then when
> an
> > echo request packet (with FEC TLV) is received by Data Plane, then how
> can
> > one verify DP against CP?
>
> I don't think the control plane implements the LSR MIB. That would be "the
> LSR". But, anyway...
>
> The deeper question you are asking is: how is the FEC-To-NHLFE table built
> at an LSR through management plane activity?
>
> You are correct that the LSR MIB module (RFC3813) only defines how to set
> up
> the LFIB.
> You should look at RFC3814 to see how the FEC-To-NHLFE table can be built
> using a MIB module.
>
> You may want to look at RFC4221 to see an overview of how all of the MPLS
> MIB modules fit together.
>
> Cheers,
> Adrian
>
>
>
------=_Part_20731_20705778.1191409613994
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: shilpa goel <shilpa07@gmail.com>
Date: Oct 3, 2007 4:20 PM
Subject: Re: ping for static LSPs?
To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
Adrian,
What I meant was that suppose MPLS DP is implementing FTN MIB while MPLS CP is implementing LSR MIB. In this scenario, when a static LSP is set up, LSR MIB is configured in the CP with the cross-connect/LSP. This cross connect information is passed to DP. FTN MIB is then configured in DP with an FEC to this cross-connect/LSP mapping.
Now consider such a LSP is pinged. When it reached the egress node, it is required that DP passes this packet to CP for "Egress FEC validation" (section 4.4, point 6 of RFC 4379). My doubt was that how can CP verify this ping packet when it does not have any such "FEC" information in its LSR MIB for this cross-connect/LSP.
thanks and regards,
Shilpa
On 10/3/07, Adrian Farrel <
adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:
Shilpa,
Since no-one else answered, I'll bite.
> I have a query regarding ping support for static LSPs.
>
> Firstly, is it supported?
I don't believe that there is anything in the definition of LSP Ping that
makes the use of a control plane to establish the LSP mandatory.
> Secondly, if Control Plane is implementing LSR MIB (which does not hold
> any
> information about FECs) to use for setting up of static LSPs, then when an
> echo request packet (with FEC TLV) is received by Data Plane, then how can
> one verify DP against CP?
I don't think the control plane implements the LSR MIB. That would be "the
LSR". But, anyway...
The deeper question you are asking is: how is the FEC-To-NHLFE table built
at an LSR through management plane activity?
You are correct that the LSR MIB module (RFC3813) only defines how to set up
the LFIB.
You should look at RFC3814 to see how the FEC-To-NHLFE table can be built
using a MIB module.
You may want to look at RFC4221 to see an overview of how all of the MPLS
MIB modules fit together.
Cheers,
Adrian
------=_Part_20731_20705778.1191409613994--
--===============0855572622==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
--===============0855572622==--
From mpls-bounces@lists.ietf.org Wed Oct 03 07:11:19 2007
Return-path:
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1Id24r-0008M5-Lb; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 07:07:41 -0400
Received: from mpls by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43)
id 1Id24q-0008Kz-0I
for mpls-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 07:07:40 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Id24p-0008KA-1f
for mpls@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 07:07:39 -0400
Received: from fk-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.128.191])
by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Id24g-0000KY-24
for mpls@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 07:07:39 -0400
Received: by fk-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id z22so4978007fkz
for ; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 04:06:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta;
h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;
bh=bBLGPvYAWPnsieDDLC3a4DWbDcLxnslWZxG7/gf1lxA=;
b=O08sTHQBHWcW4ZxeBnSR/Xs8dVjfo4hqEVxWWLN3NKvW5Nbr3p7B82BNvmFYW5upvX5ol3PZgKYRNEfs6zv7FrTj2BUEEM+HsXFeac9G6Rm3xYK/O34Ojj5d1sSnxcYqM91E3kz3TB0XVEEq401QGWRHlJgjBlSv9uieCo1kY2A=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta;
h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;
b=MUEMbsX1uY5DmZUWnYUwJSv/DFhTTt5t1NErNXcXqzMVBELFkzZQB8qHDtXvUapwtbv7cNyJaaK5Ens0KvbwBb+EYKnekTqN/xT0vumav/pLu7OJz2xvedZ74x3IPVIelBKuoMm3jCfKPsrrK7WgqFLAVwjnD2nJGvfyuRTJpTU=
Received: by 10.82.156.12 with SMTP id d12mr7048082bue.1191409614685;
Wed, 03 Oct 2007 04:06:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.82.152.14 with HTTP; Wed, 3 Oct 2007 04:06:53 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID:
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 16:36:53 +0530
From: "shilpa goel"
To: mpls-ops@mplsrc.com, mpls@lists.ietf.org, mpls@uu.net
In-Reply-To:
MIME-Version: 1.0
References:
<01dc01c805a8$213eaf60$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 10ba05e7e8a9aa6adb025f426bef3a30
Cc:
Subject: [mpls] Re: ping for static LSPs?
X-BeenThere: mpls@lists.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Archive:
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0423293202=="
Errors-To: mpls-bounces@lists.ietf.org
--===============0423293202==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_Part_20731_20705778.1191409613994"
------=_Part_20731_20705778.1191409613994
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: shilpa goel
Date: Oct 3, 2007 4:20 PM
Subject: Re: ping for static LSPs?
To: Adrian Farrel
Adrian,
What I meant was that suppose MPLS DP is implementing FTN MIB while MPLS
CP is implementing LSR MIB. In this scenario, when a static LSP is set up,
LSR MIB is configured in the CP with the cross-connect/LSP. This cross
connect information is passed to DP. FTN MIB is then configured in DP with
an FEC to this cross-connect/LSP mapping.
Now consider such a LSP is pinged. When it reached the egress node, it is
required that DP passes this packet to CP for "Egress FEC validation"
(section 4.4, point 6 of RFC 4379). My doubt was that how can CP verify this
ping packet when it does not have any such "FEC" information in its LSR MIB
for this cross-connect/LSP.
thanks and regards,
Shilpa
On 10/3/07, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>
> Shilpa,
>
> Since no-one else answered, I'll bite.
>
> > I have a query regarding ping support for static LSPs.
> >
> > Firstly, is it supported?
>
> I don't believe that there is anything in the definition of LSP Ping that
> makes the use of a control plane to establish the LSP mandatory.
>
> > Secondly, if Control Plane is implementing LSR MIB (which does not hold
> > any
> > information about FECs) to use for setting up of static LSPs, then when
> an
> > echo request packet (with FEC TLV) is received by Data Plane, then how
> can
> > one verify DP against CP?
>
> I don't think the control plane implements the LSR MIB. That would be "the
> LSR". But, anyway...
>
> The deeper question you are asking is: how is the FEC-To-NHLFE table built
> at an LSR through management plane activity?
>
> You are correct that the LSR MIB module (RFC3813) only defines how to set
> up
> the LFIB.
> You should look at RFC3814 to see how the FEC-To-NHLFE table can be built
> using a MIB module.
>
> You may want to look at RFC4221 to see an overview of how all of the MPLS
> MIB modules fit together.
>
> Cheers,
> Adrian
>
>
>
------=_Part_20731_20705778.1191409613994
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: shilpa goel <shilpa07@gmail.com>
Date: Oct 3, 2007 4:20 PM
Subject: Re: ping for static LSPs?
To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
Adrian,
What I meant was that suppose MPLS DP is implementing FTN MIB while MPLS CP is implementing LSR MIB. In this scenario, when a static LSP is set up, LSR MIB is configured in the CP with the cross-connect/LSP. This cross connect information is passed to DP. FTN MIB is then configured in DP with an FEC to this cross-connect/LSP mapping.
Now consider such a LSP is pinged. When it reached the egress node, it is required that DP passes this packet to CP for "Egress FEC validation" (section 4.4, point 6 of RFC 4379). My doubt was that how can CP verify this ping packet when it does not have any such "FEC" information in its LSR MIB for this cross-connect/LSP.
thanks and regards,
Shilpa
On 10/3/07, Adrian Farrel <
adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:
Shilpa,
Since no-one else answered, I'll bite.
> I have a query regarding ping support for static LSPs.
>
> Firstly, is it supported?
I don't believe that there is anything in the definition of LSP Ping that
makes the use of a control plane to establish the LSP mandatory.
> Secondly, if Control Plane is implementing LSR MIB (which does not hold
> any
> information about FECs) to use for setting up of static LSPs, then when an
> echo request packet (with FEC TLV) is received by Data Plane, then how can
> one verify DP against CP?
I don't think the control plane implements the LSR MIB. That would be "the
LSR". But, anyway...
The deeper question you are asking is: how is the FEC-To-NHLFE table built
at an LSR through management plane activity?
You are correct that the LSR MIB module (RFC3813) only defines how to set up
the LFIB.
You should look at RFC3814 to see how the FEC-To-NHLFE table can be built
using a MIB module.
You may want to look at RFC4221 to see an overview of how all of the MPLS
MIB modules fit together.
Cheers,
Adrian
------=_Part_20731_20705778.1191409613994--
--===============0423293202==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
--===============0423293202==--
From mpls-bounces@lists.ietf.org Wed Oct 03 07:43:02 2007
Return-path:
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1Id2cR-0006gT-2P; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 07:42:23 -0400
Received: from mpls by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43)
id 1Id2cQ-0006d2-Hi
for mpls-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 07:42:22 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Id2cQ-0006ci-7w
for mpls@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 07:42:22 -0400
Received: from static-72-71-250-34.cncdnh.fios.verizon.net ([72.71.250.34]
helo=lucidvision.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1Id2cP-0001LD-1t
for mpls@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 07:42:22 -0400
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by lucidvision.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5431F69BCC;
Wed, 3 Oct 2007 07:42:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from lucidvision.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new,
port 10024) with ESMTP
id 09235-04; Wed, 3 Oct 2007 07:42:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.120] (static-72-71-250-36.cncdnh.fios.verizon.net
[72.71.250.36])
by lucidvision.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6161A69B88;
Wed, 3 Oct 2007 07:42:34 -0400 (EDT)
In-Reply-To: <01dc01c805a8$213eaf60$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe>
References:
<01dc01c805a8$213eaf60$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3)
X-Priority: 3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <93248442-9778-4E4B-82C7-54F94078B14A@lucidvision.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Thomas D.Nadeau
Subject: Re: [mpls] Re: ping for static LSPs?
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 07:42:04 -0400
To: Adrian Farrel
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at lucidvision.com
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: c0bedb65cce30976f0bf60a0a39edea4
Cc: mpls@lists.ietf.org, shilpa goel , mpls-ops@mplsrc.com
X-BeenThere: mpls@lists.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Archive:
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
Errors-To: mpls-bounces@lists.ietf.org
> Shilpa,
>
> Since no-one else answered, I'll bite.
>
>> I have a query regarding ping support for static LSPs.
>>
>> Firstly, is it supported?
>
> I don't believe that there is anything in the definition of LSP
> Ping that makes the use of a control plane to establish the LSP
> mandatory.
This is correct. LSP ping needs a target FEC, but doesn't care how
that FEC to NHLFE mapping
was established whether though a signaling protocol or statically.
>> Secondly, if Control Plane is implementing LSR MIB (which does not
>> hold any
>> information about FECs) to use for setting up of static LSPs, then
>> when an
>> echo request packet (with FEC TLV) is received by Data Plane, then
>> how can
>> one verify DP against CP?
>
> I don't think the control plane implements the LSR MIB. That would
> be "the LSR". But, anyway...
The LSR-MIB is implemented in the control plane, but I think the
original poster is confused about
its use if you are using it to validate echo reply packets; that is
not its purpose.
> The deeper question you are asking is: how is the FEC-To-NHLFE
> table built at an LSR through management plane activity?
>
> You are correct that the LSR MIB module (RFC3813) only defines how
> to set up the LFIB.
> You should look at RFC3814 to see how the FEC-To-NHLFE table can be
> built using a MIB module.
>
> You may want to From mpls-bounces@lists.ietf.org Wed Oct 03 07:43:02 2007
Return-path:
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1Id2cR-0006gT-2P; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 07:42:23 -0400
Received: from mpls by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43)
id 1Id2cQ-0006d2-Hi
for mpls-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 07:42:22 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Id2cQ-0006ci-7w
for mpls@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 07:42:22 -0400
Received: from static-72-71-250-34.cncdnh.fios.verizon.net ([72.71.250.34]
helo=lucidvision.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1Id2cP-0001LD-1t
for mpls@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 07:42:22 -0400
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by lucidvision.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5431F69BCC;
Wed, 3 Oct 2007 07:42:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from lucidvision.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new,
port 10024) with ESMTP
id 09235-04; Wed, 3 Oct 2007 07:42:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.120] (static-72-71-250-36.cncdnh.fios.verizon.net
[72.71.250.36])
by lucidvision.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6161A69B88;
Wed, 3 Oct 2007 07:42:34 -0400 (EDT)
In-Reply-To: <01dc01c805a8$213eaf60$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe>
References:
<01dc01c805a8$213eaf60$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3)
X-Priority: 3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <93248442-9778-4E4B-82C7-54F94078B14A@lucidvision.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Thomas D.Nadeau
Subject: Re: [mpls] Re: ping for static LSPs?
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 07:42:04 -0400
To: Adrian Farrel
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at lucidvision.com
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: c0bedb65cce30976f0bf60a0a39edea4
Cc: mpls@lists.ietf.org, shilpa goel , mpls-ops@mplsrc.com
X-BeenThere: mpls@lists.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Archive:
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
Errors-To: mpls-bounces@lists.ietf.org
> Shilpa,
>
> Since no-one else answered, I'll bite.
>
>> I have a query regarding ping support for static LSPs.
>>
>> Firstly, is it supported?
>
> I don't believe that there is anything in the definition of LSP
> Ping that makes the use of a control plane to establish the LSP
> mandatory.
This is correct. LSP ping needs a target FEC, but doesn't care how
that FEC to NHLFE mapping
was established whether though a signaling protocol or statically.
>> Secondly, if Control Plane is implementing LSR MIB (which does not
>> hold any
>> information about FECs) to use for setting up of static LSPs, then
>> when an
>> echo request packet (with FEC TLV) is received by Data Plane, then
>> how can
>> one verify DP against CP?
>
> I don't think the control plane implements the LSR MIB. That would
> be "the LSR". But, anyway...
The LSR-MIB is implemented in the control plane, but I think the
original poster is confused about
its use if you are using it to validate echo reply packets; that is
not its purpose.
> The deeper question you are asking is: how is the FEC-To-NHLFE
> table built at an LSR through management plane activity?
>
> You are correct that the LSR MIB module (RFC3813) only defines how
> to set up the LFIB.
> You should look at RFC3814 to see how the FEC-To-NHLFE table can be
> built using a MIB module.
>
> You may want to look at RFC4221 to see an overview of how all of
> the MPLS MIB modules fit together.
Agreed, although I will also point out that it appears the original
poster needs a clearer
understanding of what the control and data planes do before
implementing LSP ping too,
which may or may not come from reading the original MPLS RFCs such as
RFC3031.
--Tom
>
> Cheers,
> Adrian
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@lists.ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
From mpls-bounces@lists.ietf.org Wed Oct 03 07:43:02 2007
Return-path:
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1Id2Wu-0001To-Aw; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 07:36:40 -0400
Received: from mpls by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43)
id 1Id2Ws-0001Td-8T
for mpls-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 07:36:38 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Id2Wr-0001TS-TZ
for mpls@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 07:36:37 -0400
Received: from static-72-71-250-34.cncdnh.fios.verizon.net ([72.71.250.34]
helo=lucidvision.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1Id2Wq-0001C1-Nv
for mpls@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 07:36:37 -0400
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by lucidvision.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73DFA69A82;
Wed, 3 Oct 2007 07:36:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from lucidvision.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new,
port 10024) with ESMTP
id 09161-03; Wed, 3 Oct 2007 07:36:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.120] (static-72-71-250-36.cncdnh.fios.verizon.net
[72.71.250.36])
by lucidvision.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77BAB69A5D;
Wed, 3 Oct 2007 07:36:37 -0400 (EDT)
In-Reply-To: <01dc01c805a8$213eaf60$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe>
References:
<01dc01c805a8$213eaf60$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3)
X-Priority: 3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id:
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: "Thomas D. Nadeau"
Subject: Re: [mpls] Re: ping for static LSPs?
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 07:36:07 -0400
To: Adrian Farrel
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at lucidvision.com
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: c0bedb65cce30976f0bf60a0a39edea4
Cc: mpls@lists.ietf.org, shilpa goel , mpls-ops@mplsrc.com
X-BeenThere: mpls@lists.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Archive:
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
Errors-To: mpls-bounces@lists.ietf.org
> Shilpa,
>
> Since no-one else answered, I'll bite.
>
>> I have a query regarding ping support for static LSPs.
>>
>> Firstly, is it supported?
>
> I don't believe that there is anything in the definition of LSP
> Ping that makes the use of a control plane to establish the LSP
> mandatory.
This is correct. LSP ping needs a target FEC, but doesn't care how
that FEC to NHLFE mapping
was established whether though a signaling protocol or statically.
>> Secondly, if Control Plane is implementing LSR MIB (which does not
>> hold any
>> information about FECs) to use for setting up of static LSPs, then
>> when an
>> echo request packet (with FEC TLV) is received by Data Plane, then
>> how calook at RFC4221 to see an overview of how all of
> the MPLS MIB modules fit together.
Agreed, although I will also point out that it appears the original
poster needs a clearer
understanding of what the control and data planes do before
implementing LSP ping too,
which may or may not come from reading the original MPLS RFCs such as
RFC3031.
--Tom
>
> Cheers,
> Adrian
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@lists.ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
From mpls-bounces@lists.ietf.org Wed Oct 03 07:43:02 2007
Return-path:
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1Id2Wu-0001To-Aw; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 07:36:40 -0400
Received: from mpls by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43)
id 1Id2Ws-0001Td-8T
for mpls-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 07:36:38 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Id2Wr-0001TS-TZ
for mpls@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 07:36:37 -0400
Received: from static-72-71-250-34.cncdnh.fios.verizon.net ([72.71.250.34]
helo=lucidvision.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1Id2Wq-0001C1-Nv
for mpls@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 07:36:37 -0400
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by lucidvision.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73DFA69A82;
Wed, 3 Oct 2007 07:36:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from lucidvision.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new,
port 10024) with ESMTP
id 09161-03; Wed, 3 Oct 2007 07:36:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.120] (static-72-71-250-36.cncdnh.fios.verizon.net
[72.71.250.36])
by lucidvision.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77BAB69A5D;
Wed, 3 Oct 2007 07:36:37 -0400 (EDT)
In-Reply-To: <01dc01c805a8$213eaf60$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe>
References:
<01dc01c805a8$213eaf60$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3)
X-Priority: 3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id:
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: "Thomas D. Nadeau"
Subject: Re: [mpls] Re: ping for static LSPs?
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 07:36:07 -0400
To: Adrian Farrel
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at lucidvision.com
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: c0bedb65cce30976f0bf60a0a39edea4
Cc: mpls@lists.ietf.org, shilpa goel , mpls-ops@mplsrc.com
X-BeenThere: mpls@lists.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Archive:
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
Errors-To: mpls-bounces@lists.ietf.org
> Shilpa,
>
> Since no-one else answered, I'll bite.
>
>> I have a query regarding ping support for static LSPs.
>>
>> Firstly, is it supported?
>
> I don't believe that there is anything in the definition of LSP
> Ping that makes the use of a control plane to establish the LSP
> mandatory.
This is correct. LSP ping needs a target FEC, but doesn't care how
that FEC to NHLFE mapping
was established whether though a signaling protocol or statically.
>> Secondly, if Control Plane is implementing LSR MIB (which does not
>> hold any
>> information about FECs) to use for setting up of static LSPs, then
>> when an
>> echo request packet (with FEC TLV) is received by Data Plane, then
>> how can
>> one verify DP against CP?
>
> I don't think the control plane implements the LSR MIB. That would
> be "the LSR". But, anyway...
The LSR-MIB is implemented in the control plane, but I think the
original poster is confused about
its use if you are using it to validate echo reply packets; that is
not its purpose.
> The deeper question you are asking is: how is the FEC-To-NHLFE
> table built at an LSR through management plane activity?
>
> You are correct that the LSR MIB module (RFC3813) only defines how
> to set up the LFIB.
> You should look at RFC3814 to see how the FEC-To-NHLFE table can be
> built using a MIB module.
>
> You may want to look at RFC4221 to see an overview of how all of
> the MPLS MIB modules fit together.
Agreed, although I will also point out that it appears the original
poster needs a clearer
understanding of what the control and data planes do before
implementing LSP ping too,
which may or may not come from reading the original MPLS RFCs such as
RFC3031.
--Tom
>
> Cheers,
> Adrian
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@lists.ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
n
>> one verify DP against CP?
>
> I don't think the control plane implements the LSR MIB. That would
> be "the LSR". But, anyway...
The LSR-MIB is implemented in the control plane, but I think the
original poster is confused about
its use if you are using it to validate echo reply packets; that is
not its purpose.
> The deeper question you are asking is: how is the FEC-To-NHLFE
> table built at an LSR through management plane activity?
>
> You are correct that the LSR MIB module (RFC3813) only defines how
> to set up the LFIB.
> You should look at RFC3814 to see how the FEC-To-NHLFE table can be
> built using a MIB module.
>
> You may want to look at RFC4221 to see an overview of how all of
> the MPLS MIB modules fit together.
Agreed, although I will also point out that it appears the original
poster needs a clearer
understanding of what the control and data planes do before
implementing LSP ping too,
which may or may not come from reading the original MPLS RFCs such as
RFC3031.
--Tom
>
> Cheers,
> Adrian
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@lists.ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
From mpls-bounces@lists.ietf.org Wed Oct 03 07:43:07 2007
Return-path:
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1Id2aC-0005cP-CI; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 07:40:04 -0400
Received: from mpls by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43)
id 1Id2aB-0005aO-6h
for mpls-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 07:40:03 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Id2aA-0005VA-GF
for mpls@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 07:40:02 -0400
Received: from static-72-71-250-34.cncdnh.fios.verizon.net ([72.71.250.34]
helo=lucidvision.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1Id2a3-0001H4-AS
for mpls@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 07:40:02 -0400
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by lucidvision.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8878169ADB;
Wed, 3 Oct 2007 07:40:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from lucidvision.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new,
port 10024) with ESMTP
id 09161-04; Wed, 3 Oct 2007 07:40:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.120] (static-72-71-250-36.cncdnh.fios.verizon.net
[72.71.250.36])
by lucidvision.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C91769AAF;
Wed, 3 Oct 2007 07:40:10 -0400 (EDT)
In-Reply-To:
References:
<01dc01c805a8$213eaf60$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3)
Message-Id: <6FADD7F2-E954-44D4-9BF9-B11217E771AE@lucidvision.com>
From: "Thomas D. Nadeau"
Subject: Re: [mpls] Re: ping for static LSPs?
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 07:39:40 -0400
To: shilpa goel
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at lucidvision.com
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 501044f827b673024f6a4cb1d46e67d2
Cc: mpls@lists.ietf.org, mpls@UU.NET, mpls-ops@mplsrc.com
X-BeenThere: mpls@lists.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Archive:
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1780591070=="
Errors-To: mpls-bounces@lists.ietf.org
--===============1780591070==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-5-503499346
--Apple-Mail-5-503499346
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=US-ASCII;
delsp=yes;
format=flowed
On Oct 3, 2007, at 7:06 AM, shilpa goel wrote:
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: shilpa goel
> Date: Oct 3, 2007 4:20 PM
> Subject: Re: ping for static LSPs?
> To: Adrian Farrel
>
> Adrian,
>
> What I meant was that suppose MPLS DP is implementing FTN MIB
> while MPLS CP is implementing LSR MIB. In this scenario, when a
> static LSP is set up, LSR MIB is configured in the CP with the
> cross-connect/LSP. This cross connect information is passed to DP.
> FTN MIB is then configured in DP with an FEC to this cross-connect/
> LSP mapping.
Again, I think you are a bit confused about how the MIBs are used.
The XCEntry is a "mib only thing"
used to bind together the incoming and outgoing labels. Internally,
this can actually be a variety of
things, but suffice to say it has really nothing to do with lsp ping
except that when validating an echo
request, you are consulting the same control plane information under
the covers. You are also
validating that the data plane is consistent with this view of the
world as well.
> Now consider such a LSP is pinged.
> When it reached the egress node, it is required that DP passes this
> packet to CP for "Egress FEC validation" (section 4.4, point 6 of
> RFC 4379). My doubt was that how can CP verify this ping packet
> when it does not have any such "FEC" information in its LSR MIB for
> this cross-connect/LSP.
The target FEC information is included in the echo request message.
It should be compared against
that of the receiving LSR to determine among other things, if this
packet was indeed destined
for the LSR on which it is terminating.
--Tom
>
>
> thanks and regards,
> Shilpa
>
>
> On 10/3/07, Adrian Farrel < adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:
> Shilpa,
>
> Since no-one else answered, I'll bite.
>
> > I have a query regarding ping support for static LSPs.
> >
> > Firstly, is it supported?
>
> I don't believe that there is anything in the definition of LSP
> Ping that
> makes the use of a control plane to establish the LSP mandatory.
>
> > Secondly, if Control Plane is implementing LSR MIB (which does
> not hold
> > any
> > information about FECs) to use for setting up of static LSPs,
> then when an
> > echo request packet (with FEC TLV) is received by Data Plane,
> then how can
> > one verify DP against CP?
>
> I don't think the control plane implements the LSR MIB. That would
> be "the
> LSR". But, anyway...
>
> The deeper question you are asking is: how is the FEC-To-NHLFE
> table built
> at an LSR through management plane activity?
>
> You are correct that the LSR MIB module (RFC3813) only defines how
> to set up
> the LFIB.
> You should look at RFC3814 to see how the FEC-To-NHLFE table can be
> built
> using a MIB module.
>
> You may want to look at RFC4221 to see an overview of how all of
> the MPLS
> MIB modules fit together.
>
> Cheers,
> Adrian
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@lists.ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
--Apple-Mail-5-503499346
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1
On Oct 3, 2007, at 7:06 AM, shilpa goel wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: shilpa =
goel <shilpa07@gmail.com>
Date: =
Oct 3, 2007 4:20 PM
Subject: Re: ping for static LSPs?
To: Adrian =
Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
Adrian,
=A0 What I meant was that suppose MPLS DP is =
implementing FTN MIB while MPLS CP is implementing LSR MIB. In this =
scenario, when a static LSP is set up, LSR MIB is configured in the CP =
with the cross-connect/LSP. This cross connect information is passed to =
DP. FTN MIB is then configured in DP with an FEC to this =
cross-connect/LSP mapping.
Again, I =
think you are a bit confused about how the MIBs are used. The XCEntry is =
a "mib only thing"
used =
to bind together the incoming and outgoing labels. Internally, this can =
actually be a variety of
things, but suffice to say it has =
really nothing to do with lsp ping except that when validating an =
echo=A0
request, you are consulting the same control plane =
information under the covers. =A0 You are also=A0
validating =
that the data plane is consistent with this view of the world as =
well.
Now consider such a LSP is =
pinged.
When it reached the egress =
node, it is required that DP passes this packet to CP for "Egress FEC =
validation" (section 4.4, point 6 of RFC 4379). My doubt was that how =
can CP verify this ping packet when it does not have any such "FEC" =
information in its LSR MIB for this cross-connect/LSP. =
The =
target FEC information is included in the echo request message. It =
should be compared against
that of the receiving LSR =
to determine among other things, if this packet was indeed =
destined
for the LSR on which it is terminating.
--Tom
thanks and regards,
Shilpa
On =
10/3/07, Adrian Farrel < adrian@olddog.co.uk> =
wrote: Shilpa,
Since no-one else answered, I'll =
bite.
>=A0=A0I have a query regarding ping support for static =
LSPs.
>
> Firstly, is it supported?
I don't believe =
that there is anything in the definition of LSP Ping that
makes the =
use of a control plane to establish the LSP mandatory.
> =
Secondly, if Control Plane is implementing LSR MIB (which does not =
hold
> any
> information about FECs) to use for setting up =
of static LSPs, then when an
> echo request packet (with FEC TLV) =
is received by Data Plane, then how can
> one verify DP against =
CP?
I don't think the control plane implements the LSR MIB. That =
would be "the
LSR". But, anyway...
The deeper question you =
are asking is: how is the FEC-To-NHLFE table built
at an LSR through =
management plane activity?
You are correct that the LSR MIB =
module (RFC3813) only defines how to set up
the LFIB.
You should =
look at RFC3814 to see how the FEC-To-NHLFE table can be built
using =
a MIB module.
You may want to look at RFC4221 to see an overview =
of how all of the MPLS
MIB modules fit together.
Cheers, =
Adrian
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
=
--Apple-Mail-5-503499346--
--===============1780591070==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
--===============1780591070==--
From mpls-bounces@lists.ietf.org Wed Oct 03 07:43:12 2007
Return-path:
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1Id2cZ-00074A-6m; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 07:42:31 -0400
Received: from mpls by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43)
id 1Id2cX-00071F-VZ
for mpls-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 07:42:29 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Id2cX-00070i-LP
for mpls@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 07:42:29 -0400
Received: from static-72-71-250-34.cncdnh.fios.verizon.net ([72.71.250.34]
helo=lucidvision.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1Id2cW-0001LQ-AB
for mpls@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 07:42:29 -0400
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by lucidvision.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A551E69BDC;
Wed, 3 Oct 2007 07:42:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from lucidvision.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new,
port 10024) with ESMTP
id 09161-07; Wed, 3 Oct 2007 07:42:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.120] (static-72-71-250-36.cncdnh.fios.verizon.net
[72.71.250.36])
by lucidvision.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB98B69BA5;
Wed, 3 Oct 2007 07:42:40 -0400 (EDT)
In-Reply-To:
References:
<01dc01c805a8$213eaf60$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3)
Message-Id: <81581820-DA0E-4EFD-BE06-E571EDA04720@lucidvision.com>
From: Thomas D.Nadeau
Subject: Re: [mpls] Re: ping for static LSPs?
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 07:42:11 -0400
To: shilpa goel
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at lucidvision.com
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 501044f827b673024f6a4cb1d46e67d2
Cc: mpls@lists.ietf.org, mpls@UU.NET, mpls-ops@mplsrc.com
X-BeenThere: mpls@lists.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Archive:
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0732581826=="
Errors-To: mpls-bounces@lists.ietf.org
--===============0732581826==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-6-503650469
--Apple-Mail-6-503650469
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=US-ASCII;
delsp=yes;
format=flowed
On Oct 3, 2007, at 7:06 AM, shilpa goel wrote:
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: shilpa goel
> Date: Oct 3, 2007 4:20 PM
> Subject: Re: ping for static LSPs?
> To: Adrian Farrel
>
> Adrian,
>
> What I meant was that suppose MPLS DP is implementing FTN MIB
> while MPLS CP is implementing LSR MIB. In this scenario, when a
> static LSP is set up, LSR MIB is configured in the CP with the
> cross-connect/LSP. This cross connect information is passed to DP.
> FTN MIB is then configured in DP with an FEC to this cross-connect/
> LSP mapping.
Again, I think you are a bit confused about how the MIBs are used.
The XCEntry is a "mib only thing"
used to bind together the incoming and outgoing labels. Internally,
this can actually be a variety of
things, but suffice to say it has really nothing to do with lsp ping
except that when validating an echo
request, you are consulting the same control plane information under
the covers. You are also
validating that the data plane is consistent with this view of the
world as well.
> Now consider such a LSP is pinged.
> When it reached the egress node, it is required that DP passes this
> packet to CP for "Egress FEC validation" (section 4.4, point 6 of
> RFC 4379). My doubt was that how can CP verify this ping packet
> when it does not have any such "FEC" information in its LSR MIB for
> this cross-connect/LSP.
The target FEC information is included in the echo request message.
It should be compared against
that of the receiving LSR to determine among other things, if this
packet was indeed destined
for the LSR on which it is terminating.
--Tom
>
>
> thanks and regards,
> Shilpa
>
>
> On 10/3/07, Adrian Farrel < adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:
> Shilpa,
>
> Since no-one else answered, I'll bite.
>
> > I have a query regarding ping support for static LSPs.
> >
> > Firstly, is it supported?
>
> I don't believe that there is anything in the definition of LSP
> Ping that
> makes the use of a control plane to establish the LSP mandatory.
>
> > Secondly, if Control Plane is implementing LSR MIB (which does
> not hold
> > any
> > information about FECs) to use for setting up of static LSPs,
> then when an
> > echo request packet (with FEC TLV) is received by Data Plane,
> then how can
> > one verify DP against CP?
>
> I don't think the control plane implements the LSR MIB. That would
> be "the
> LSR". But, anyway...
>
> The deeper question you are asking is: how is the FEC-To-NHLFE
> table built
> at an LSR through management plane activity?
>
> You are correct that the LSR MIB module (RFC3813) only defines how
> to set up
> the LFIB.
> You should look at RFC3814 to see how the FEC-To-NHLFE table can be
> built
> using a MIB module.
>
> You may want to look at RFC4221 to see an overview of how all of
> the MPLS
> MIB modules fit together.
>
> Cheers,
> Adrian
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@lists.ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
--Apple-Mail-6-503650469
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1
On Oct 3, 2007, at 7:06 AM, shilpa goel wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: shilpa =
goel <shilpa07@gmail.com>
Date: =
Oct 3, 2007 4:20 PM
Subject: Re: ping for static LSPs?
To: Adrian =
Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
Adrian,
=A0 What I meant was that suppose MPLS DP is =
implementing FTN MIB while MPLS CP is implementing LSR MIB. In this =
scenario, when a static LSP is set up, LSR MIB is configured in the CP =
with the cross-connect/LSP. This cross connect information is passed to =
DP. FTN MIB is then configured in DP with an FEC to this =
cross-connect/LSP mapping.
Again, I =
think you are a bit confused about how the MIBs are used. The XCEntry is =
a "mib only thing"
used =
to bind together the incoming and outgoing labels. Internally, this can =
actually be a variety of
things, but suffice to say it has =
really nothing to do with lsp ping except that when validating an =
echo=A0
request, you are consulting the same control plane =
information under the covers. =A0 You are also=A0
validating =
that the data plane is consistent with this view of the world as =
well.
Now consider such a LSP is =
pinged.
When it reached the egress =
node, it is required that DP passes this packet to CP for "Egress FEC =
validation" (section 4.4, point 6 of RFC 4379). My doubt was that how =
can CP verify this ping packet when it does not have any such "FEC" =
information in its LSR MIB for this cross-connect/LSP. =
The =
target FEC information is included in the echo request message. It =
should be compared against
that of the receiving LSR =
to determine among other things, if this packet was indeed =
destined
for the LSR on which it is terminating.
--Tom
thanks and regards,
Shilpa
On =
10/3/07, Adrian Farrel < adrian@olddog.co.uk> =
wrote: Shilpa,
Since no-one else answered, I'll =
bite.
>=A0=A0I have a query regarding ping support for static =
LSPs.
>
> Firstly, is it supported?
I don't believe =
that there is anything in the definition of LSP Ping that
makes the =
use of a control plane to establish the LSP mandatory.
> =
Secondly, if Control Plane is implementing LSR MIB (which does not =
hold
> any
> information about FECs) to use for setting up =
of static LSPs, then when an
> echo request packet (with FEC TLV) =
is received by Data Plane, then how can
> one verify DP against =
CP?
I don't think the control plane implements the LSR MIB. That =
would be "the
LSR". But, anyway...
The deeper question you =
are asking is: how is the FEC-To-NHLFE table built
at an LSR through =
management plane activity?
You are correct that the LSR MIB =
module (RFC3813) only defines how to set up
the LFIB.
You should =
look at RFC3814 to see how the FEC-To-NHLFE table can be built
using =
a MIB module.
You may want to look at RFC4221 to see an overview =
of how all of the MPLS
MIB modules fit together.
Cheers, =
Adrian
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
=
--Apple-Mail-6-503650469--
--===============0732581826==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
--===============0732581826==--
From mpls-bounces@lists.ietf.org Wed Oct 03 08:01:29 2007
Return-path:
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1Id2sE-0003Ww-Q4; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 07:58:42 -0400
Received: from mpls by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43)
id 1Id2sD-0003VF-T0
for mpls-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 07:58:41 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Id2sD-0003V7-H6
for mpls@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 07:58:41 -0400
Received: from rutherford.zen.co.uk ([212.23.3.142])
by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Id2sC-0001sg-6t
for mpls@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 07:58:41 -0400
Received: from [88.96.235.138] (helo=cortex.aria-networks.com)
by rutherford.zen.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Id2sB-0008WA-N3
for mpls@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 11:58:39 +0000
Received: from your029b8cecfe ([81.140.15.32] RDNS failed) by
cortex.aria-networks.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959);
Wed, 3 Oct 2007 12:58:38 +0100
Message-ID: <022f01c805b4$b8e5a8d0$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe>
From: "Adrian Farrel"
To: "shilpa goel"
References: <01dc01c805a8$213eaf60$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 12:58:28 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Oct 2007 11:58:38.0640 (UTC)
FILETIME=[BBFF9300:01C805B4]
X-Originating-Rutherford-IP: [88.96.235.138]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: a7d6aff76b15f3f56fcb94490e1052e4
Cc: mpls@lists.ietf.org, mpls-ops@mplsrc.com
Subject: [mpls] Re: ping for static LSPs?
X-BeenThere: mpls@lists.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Adrian Farrel
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Archive:
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
Errors-To: mpls-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Hi,
> What I meant was that suppose MPLS DP is implementing FTN MIB while MPLS
> CP is implementing LSR MIB. In this scenario, when a static LSP is set up,
> LSR MIB is configured in the CP with the cross-connect/LSP. This cross
> connect information is passed to DP. FTN MIB is then configured in DP with
> an FEC to this cross-connect/LSP mapping.
Well, first, you must get off this thing about the CP or DP implementing a
MIB.
The LSR is one big, happy family.
The MIB is present in the management plane. The information that is stored
to correspond to the MIB objects may be stored in the CP or DP.
When Tom says that he thinks the LSR MIB is implemented in the control
plane, I tend to disagree. It is perfectly possible to have no control plane
on an LSR and still have access to the LFIB information through the LSR MIB.
(Of course, how LSRs are actually built is a different matter.)
> Now consider such a LSP is pinged. When it reached the egress node, it is
> required that DP passes this packet to CP for "Egress FEC validation"
> (section 4.4, point 6 of RFC 4379).
Why is the Ping packet passed to the CP?
Because LSP Ping is a CP protocol.
Thus, the module that processes the packet is a CP module.
> My doubt was that how can CP verify this
> ping packet when it does not have any such "FEC"
> information in its LSR MIB for this cross-connect/LSP.
If your CP implementation is unable to read the FTN information stored in
the data plane then:
- you can't process the ping
- your implementation is probably badly broken!
At the very least (although this would be an incredibly bad idea) the CP
should be able to read the FTN MIB using SNMP.
Adrian
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
From Vilmafolkfolk@linksys.com Wed Oct 03 09:13:50 2007
Return-path:
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1Id42w-0004Ch-RZ
for mpls-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 09:13:50 -0400
Received: from 84.126.205.16.dyn.user.ono.com ([84.126.205.16] helo=mut4ntsgfk39bs)
by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1Id42w-0000Zu-Eu
for mpls-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 09:13:50 -0400
Received: from scary
by linksys.com with SMTP id yS57M0g8Hy
for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2007 15:12:47 -0100
From: "Carey Esposito"
To:
Subject: Thank you, we accepted your loan request
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 4.0 (++++)
X-Scan-Signature: cf4fa59384e76e63313391b70cd0dd25
Finding rates low enough to suit is never an easy task. What if I were to tell you that there actually is a simple way to find the a lower rate for you? What if I told you that the rates were lower than any other one out there? You would of course be doubtful of what I said, but why not check for yourself?
http://contriculation.com/
Lenders should be offering you the best deals and not make you search for them.
Stop fighting for lenders let them fight for you! Make them work for your business by giving you the lowest rates around!
If you want a lower interest rate,and peace of mind then..
http://contriculation.com/
Bad credit seems to be a major deterrent for lenders these days but again, what if there was somewhere out there who didn't care for your credit status? Low credit rating? No problem.
http://contriculation.com/
Lynnette Grover
From tourismminister@libelle.com Wed Oct 03 11:27:19 2007
Return-path:
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1Id687-0005mm-VP
for mpls-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 11:27:19 -0400
Received: from [58.142.166.142] (helo=eqgujd)
by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1Id682-0000mk-8O
for mpls-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 11:27:15 -0400
Received: from [80.91.67.75] (helo=yilbu)
by eqgujd with smtp (Exim 4.62 (FreeBSD))
id 1J•%9U-0007Mp-LG; Thu, 4 Oct 2007 00:28:44 +0900
Message-ID: <4703B4BD.4060003@libelle.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 00:26:53 +0900
From:
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: mpls-archive@lists.ietf.org
Subject: Take a look at this and tell me what you think
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 8ac499381112328dd60aea5b1ff596ea
Fearless 28, the next must have of luxury.
Fearless International Inc. (FRLE) $0.20
Already sold 33 yachts at $300,000 a piece. Get frLE wed
From Abrahamfishermanmercuric@canadiandriver.com Wed Oct 03 13:00:54 2007
Return-path:
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1Id7ag-00011X-DL
for mpls-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 13:00:54 -0400
Received: from 84.123.204.120.dyn.user.ono.com ([84.123.204.120] helo=usere3033a0b40)
by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1Id7af-00008K-MD
for mpls-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 13:00:54 -0400
Received: from flick
by canadiandriver.com with SMTP id M8tlN3Nji6
for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2007 18:58:31 -0100
From: "Abraham Salazar"
To:
Subject: Fw: Thanks, we are ready to lend you money
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 4.0 (++++)
X-Scan-Signature: cf4fa59384e76e63313391b70cd0dd25
Finding rates low enough to suit is never an easy task. What if I were to tell you that there actually is a simple way to find the a lower rate for you? What if I told you that the rates were lower than any other one out there? You would of course be doubtful of what I said, but why not check for yourself?
http://contriculation.com/
Lenders should be offering you the best deals and not make you search for them.
Stop fighting for lenders let them fight for you! Make them work for your business by giving you the lowest rates around!
If you want a lower interest rate,and peace of mind then..
http://contriculation.com/
Bad credit seems to be a major deterrent for lenders these days but again, what if there was somewhere out there who didn't care for your credit status? Low credit rating? No problem.
http://contriculation.com/
Johnathan Mcgee
From mpls-bounces@lists.ietf.org Wed Oct 03 13:04:55 2007
Return-path:
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1Id7Wp-0000N4-2F; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 12:56:55 -0400
Received: from mpls by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43)
id 1Id7Wn-0000Mu-Rn
for mpls-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 12:56:53 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Id7Wn-0000Mm-IH
for mpls@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 12:56:53 -0400
Received: from zcars04f.nortel.com ([47.129.242.57])
by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Id7Wi-00045v-BA
for mpls@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 12:56:53 -0400
Received: from zcarhxm2.corp.nortel.com (zcarhxm2.corp.nortel.com
[47.129.230.99])
by zcars04f.nortel.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id
l93Gu6e08578; Wed, 3 Oct 2007 16:56:07 GMT
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [mpls] Re: ping for static LSPs?
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 12:55:55 -0400
Message-ID: <87AC5F88F03E6249AEA68D40BD3E00BE11D8A5EE@zcarhxm2.corp.nortel.com>
In-Reply-To: <93248442-9778-4E4B-82C7-54F94078B14A@lucidvision.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [mpls] Re: ping for static LSPs?
thread-index: AcgFs4nXJ7l/d1QtQRKzC4nOIH6XOQAKp4eg
References:
<01dc01c805a8$213eaf60$0200a8c0@your029b8cecfe>
<93248442-9778-4E4B-82C7-54F94078B14A@lucidvision.com>
From: "David Allan"
To: "Thomas D.Nadeau" ,
"Adrian Farrel"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: bdc523f9a54890b8a30dd6fd53d5d024
Cc: mpls@lists.ietf.org, shilpa goel , mpls-ops@mplsrc.com
X-BeenThere: mpls@lists.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Archive:
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
Errors-To: mpls-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Just a thought but when doing a traceroute, the FTN information would
not be available in any form at transit nodes...?
C'est vrai?
Dave=20
-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas D.Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@lucidvision.com]=20
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 7:42 AM
To: Adrian Farrel
Cc: mpls@lists.ietf.org; shilpa goel; mpls-ops@mplsrc.com
Subject: Re: [mpls] Re: ping for static LSPs?
> Shilpa,
>
> Since no-one else answered, I'll bite.
>
>> I have a query regarding ping support for static LSPs.
>>
>> Firstly, is it supported?
>
> I don't believe that there is anything in the definition of LSP Ping=20
> that makes the use of a control plane to establish the LSP mandatory.
This is correct. LSP ping needs a target FEC, but doesn't care
how that FEC to NHLFE mapping was established whether though a signaling
protocol or statically.
>> Secondly, if Control Plane is implementing LSR MIB (which does not=20
>> hold any information about FECs) to use for setting up of static=20
>> LSPs, then when an echo request packet (with FEC TLV) is received by=20
>> Data Plane, then how can one verify DP against CP?
>
> I don't think the control plane implements the LSR MIB. That would be=20
> "the LSR". But, anyway...
The LSR-MIB is implemented in the control plane, but I think the
original poster is confused about its use if you are using it to
validate echo reply packets; that is not its purpose.
> The deeper question you are asking is: how is the FEC-To-NHLFE table=20
> built at an LSR through management plane activity?
>
> You are correct that the LSR MIB module (RFC3813) only defines how to=20
> set up the LFIB.
> You should look at RFC3814 to see how the FEC-To-NHLFE table can be=20
> built using a MIB module.
>
> You may want to look at RFC4221 to see an overview of how all of the=20
> MPLS MIB modules fit together.
Agreed, although I will also point out that it appears the
original poster needs a clearer understanding of what the control and
data planes do before implementing LSP ping too, which may or may not
come from reading the original MPLS RFCs such as RFC3031.
--Tom
>
> Cheers,
> Adrian
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@lists.ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
From Nishil_Shumaker@keepsmiling.de Wed Oct 03 13:28:14 2007
Return-path:
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1Id816-0008Ej-Si
for mpls-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 13:28:13 -0400
Received: from [72.54.54.189] (helo=[72.54.54.189])
by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1Id816-000123-J4
for mpls-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 13:28:12 -0400
Received: from user-j3p0wlyyx4 ([172.137.181.30] helo=user-j3p0wlyyx4)
by [72.54.54.189] ( sendmail 8.13.3/8.13.1) with esmtpa id 1HSeGd-000ATF-qJ
for mpls-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 3 Oct 2007 12:28:32 -0500
Message-ID: <000201c805e2$bfc44d40$bd363648@userj3p0wlyyx4>
From: "Nishil Shumaker"
To:
Subject: mistread
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 12:28:01 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0004_01C805B8.D6EE4540"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028
X-Spam-Score: 3.5 (+++)
X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464
------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C805B8.D6EE4540
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
http://siteaval.com/
Whats up mpls-archive
Did you ever ask yourself is my penis big enough????
Nishil Shumaker
------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C805B8.D6EE4540
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Whats up mpls-archive
Did you ever ask yourself is my penis big =
enough????
Nishil Shumaker
------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C805B8.D6EE4540--
From puqpuertinsafos@puertinsa.com Wed Oct 03 18:12:10 2007
Return-path:
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1IdCRt-0007cG-Nt; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 18:12:09 -0400
Received: from [86.108.126.146] (helo=3d-98d6108f281f)
by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1IdCRm-0004dJ-Tq; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 18:12:05 -0400
Received: from [86.108.126.146] by mail.puertinsa.com; Wed, 33 Sep 2007 07:18:06 -0800
Date: Wed, 33 Sep 2007 07:18:06 -0800
From: "Kerry Wilkins"
X-Mailer: The Bat! (v2.10.01) Personal
Reply-To: puqpuertinsafos@puertinsa.com
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Message-ID: <783040736.09047051309371@puertinsa.com>
To: isms-request@lists.ietf.org
Subject: Software
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----------84010109DA3EC8BD"
X-Spam-Score: 1.8 (+)
X-Scan-Signature: 9466e0365fc95844abaf7c3f15a05c7d
------------84010109DA3EC8BD
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Are you looking for the better prices in software rebates?
Now you'll catch the opportunity to use the softs you dreamt of for a very long time.
And the better thing for you is, all softwares are of utmost low price.
Check up by yourself & take the softwares for cheap costs.
http://rcramsu.yourbusinesssoft.net/
------------84010109DA3EC8BD
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit