RE: [L2CP] TLV number clash in new wadhwa draft
"Peter Arberg" <parberg@redback.com> Wed, 24 May 2006 04:26 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fikx9-0002q7-Vq; Wed, 24 May 2006 00:26:35 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fikx8-0002pw-Vg for l2cp@ietf.org; Wed, 24 May 2006 00:26:34 -0400
Received: from prattle.redback.com ([155.53.12.9]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fikx7-0007IY-Hc for l2cp@ietf.org; Wed, 24 May 2006 00:26:34 -0400
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF0BCB1327C; Tue, 23 May 2006 21:26:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from prattle.redback.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (prattle [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 09010-07; Tue, 23 May 2006 21:26:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from PARBETM2XP (login005.redback.com [155.53.12.64]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D400B13276; Tue, 23 May 2006 21:26:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: Peter Arberg <parberg@redback.com>
To: 'Sanjay Wadhwa' <swadhwa@juniper.net>, l2cp@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [L2CP] TLV number clash in new wadhwa draft
Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 21:26:21 -0700
Organization: Redback Networks
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353
Thread-Index: AcZ97co3ek+BrcK0R7e1TxXx0Vh9UwAL/nmAABWivhAAHWPBgA==
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869
In-Reply-To: <9BD5D7887235424FA97DFC223CAE3C2803B756CB@proton.jnpr.net>
Message-Id: <20060524042626.6D400B13276@prattle.redback.com>
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at redback.com
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 1a1bf7677bfe77d8af1ebe0e91045c5b
Cc:
X-BeenThere: l2cp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: parberg@redback.com
List-Id: Layer 2 Control Protocol Discussion List <l2cp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2cp>, <mailto:l2cp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/l2cp>
List-Post: <mailto:l2cp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2cp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2cp>, <mailto:l2cp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l2cp-bounces@ietf.org
Hi Sanjay, I know. My mistake, it was a user error where an internal company email by mistake got send to the ietf list. sorry for the mistake, peter > -----Original Message----- > From: Sanjay Wadhwa [mailto:swadhwa@juniper.net] > Sent: 23. maj 2006 07:25 > To: parberg@redback.com; Jakob Heitz; l2cp@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [L2CP] TLV number clash in new wadhwa draft > > Peter > Most of this doesn't belong to the list. Let us limit the discussion > here to technical issues if any with the current version of the draft. > > Thanks > -Sanjay > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Peter Arberg [mailto:parberg@redback.com] > >Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 12:08 AM > >To: 'Jakob Heitz'; l2cp@ietf.org > >Subject: RE: [L2CP] TLV number clash in new wadhwa draft > > > > > >So at the moment there is no need to even read the new draft. > > > >Most of these changes is done because I have requested them > >based on other customer discussions, non DT, and to make ANCP > >more compliant to TR-101 from information it includes. > > > >But unfortunately the update is not made consistent, so there > >is even number disagreement inside the draft. > > > >So for now, forget it is there, and stay at the .0 draft. > > > >This .01 version is actually a lot closer to the PDD, but since > >mainly the DSLAM vendors kept arguing against the draft, and > >Wadhwa was to slow to get it out, it will not make the DT trail > >which was the idea back in January. > > > >Peter > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Jakob Heitz [mailto:jheitz@redback.com] > >> Sent: 22. maj 2006 15:20 > >> To: l2cp@ietf.org > >> Subject: Re: [L2CP] TLV number clash in new wadhwa draft > >> > >> Also, Access-Aggregation-Circuit-ID-ASCII > >> for VLAN is specified thus: > >> Access-Node-Identifier eth slot/port > [:inner-vlan-id][:outer-vlan-id] > >> > >> Could we swap the outer and inner, like this ? > >> Access-Node-Identifier eth slot/port > [:outer-vlan-id][:inner-vlan-id] > >> > >> Jakob Heitz wrote: > >> > For PORT UP TLVs, new addition, > >> > 2. Type (Access-Loop-Remote-Id = 0x02) > >> > required a renumbering of > >> > 3. Type (Access-Aggregation-Circuit-ID-Binary = 0x04) > >> > from 0x02 to 0x04. > >> > However, > >> > 5. Type (DSL Line Attributes = 0x04): > >> > is 0x04. A clash! > >> > Because this one contains its own TLVs, is it even needed? > >> > The encapsulated TLVs have no numbering clashes. > >> > > >> > > >> > The new version is incompatible with the old due to > >> > the renumbered items. Therefore could we please > >> > bump the version, say to 0x32. > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > L2cp mailing list > >> > L2cp@ietf.org > >> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2cp > >> > >> -- > >> Jakob Heitz. x5475. 510-566-2901 > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> L2cp mailing list > >> L2cp@ietf.org > >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2cp > >> > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >L2cp mailing list > >L2cp@ietf.org > >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2cp > > > _______________________________________________ L2cp mailing list L2cp@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2cp
- [L2CP] TLV number clash in new wadhwa draft Jakob Heitz
- Re: [L2CP] TLV number clash in new wadhwa draft Jakob Heitz
- RE: [L2CP] TLV number clash in new wadhwa draft Peter Arberg
- RE: [L2CP] TLV number clash in new wadhwa draft Sanjay Wadhwa
- RE: [L2CP] TLV number clash in new wadhwa draft Sanjay Wadhwa
- RE: [L2CP] TLV number clash in new wadhwa draft Peter Arberg