Re: LCP echo request/reply support over multilink interface (RFC 1990)
Ignacio Goyret <[email protected]> Tue, 09 Mar 2010 11:29:21 -0800
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.pppext |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
At 10:19 AM 3/3/2010 +0530, Y Prasad wrote: >It says LCP echo-req/reply on the bundle is optional. Assume that an >implementation sends LCP ECHO req. on the bundle and the remote chooses >not to reply (as it is optional) then sender would likely to drop the >bundle. If it does that, then the sender of the Echo-Request is not compliant. > Perhaps mentioning one of the following clauses help. > > 1. Let the peer negotiate "LCP-echo req on the bundle" during LCP req >and subsequently send LCP echo req on the bundle only if it is accepted >by the remote peer. The LCP Echo function is not negotiated. It is mandatory at the link level and optional at the bundle level. >OR > > 2. Sending LCP ECHO-req on the bundle is option. But LCP ECHO-reply on >the bundle need to be mandatory. No, the remote peer is not required to respond to the Echo-Request on the bundle (meaning, with MP headers). If you make any assumption based on not receiving a response in this case (other than the remote didn't answer), you are writing code that it is not interoperable. -Ignacio _______________________________________________ Pppext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext