RFC 7737: Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping and Traceroute Reply Mode Simplification
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
The Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping and Traceroute use the Reply Mode field to signal the method to be used in the MPLS echo reply. This document updates the procedures for the "Reply via Specified Path" Reply Mode. The value of this Reply Mode is 5. The update creates a simple way to indicate that the reverse LSP should be used as the return path. This document also adds an optional TLV that can carry an ordered list of Reply Mode values.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC7737
- Published
- January 2016
- Authors
- N. Akiya; G. Swallow; C. Pignataro; L. Andersson; M. Chen
- Status
- PROPOSED STANDARD
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- rtg
- Pages
- 17
- Also known as
- —
- Updates:
- RFC 7110
Topics
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 8012Label Switched Path (LSP) and Pseudowire (PW) Ping/Trace over MPLS Networks Using Entropy Labels (ELs)Current
November 2016
- RFC 8287Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Traceroute for Segment Routing (SR) IGP-Prefix and IGP-Adjacency Segment Identifiers (SIDs) with MPLS Data PlanesUpdated
December 2017
- RFC 8611Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping and Traceroute Multipath Support for Link Aggregation Group (LAG) InterfacesUpdated
June 2019
- RFC 7726Clarifying Procedures for Establishing BFD Sessions for MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs)Current
January 2016
- RFC 7759Configuration of Proactive Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Functions for MPLS-Based Transport Networks Using Label Switched Path (LSP) PingCurrent
February 2016
- RFC 7876UDP Return Path for Packet Loss and Delay Measurement for MPLS NetworksCurrent
July 2016
- RFC 7537IANA Registries for LSP Ping Code PointsObsoleted
May 2015
- RFC 7510Encapsulating MPLS in UDPCurrent
April 2015
Also filed under
About this page
The document record above — title, authors, date, status, stream, area, relationships, DOI and errata — is imported verbatim from the public RFC Editor index. The “in plain English” section is editorial: written by The metasystema editorial team, not part of the RFC. Where the two differ, the RFC text governs.
Last checked against the RFC Editor index on . RFCs are never revised after publication; changes are issued as new documents.
Data sources · Editorial policy · Report a correction · What is an RFC?