IETF Logo Mail Archive

[mpls-tp] Question RE:draft-frost-mpls-tp-loss-delay-02

Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Wed, 30 June 2010 18:32 UTC

Return-Path: <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mpls-tp@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls-tp@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB1983A6AB7; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 11:32:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.132
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.132 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.466, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CuLo4GyQLYaE; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 11:31:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vw0-f44.google.com (mail-vw0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D1F43A6ACD; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 11:31:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vws10 with SMTP id 10so1335546vws.31 for <multiple recipients>; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 11:32:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:date:message-id :subject:from:to:content-type; bh=BnyZgynxARUaVznjCvTzWEESxYnlwGovXRze9ui4o3M=; b=VKJy3eRswtGNWetvERz2WWMs3/ZNR9ds6TXULUoe2fho7HVb0LtubHwDL7WXbGUb9V 72gAnQV+dgCnK1dZyt1yf7QDZlM6ezT19662Koyo/g2DtzzSPXHL5QCurBWjkexuqnuh WHWZ/Jwtn1Fwq71BkYGmBG0mR0hWJqpRfYiQI=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=aTIjuIOQ8fhGf7KDO0/yNkyQCNFy/hxFlM5TCuY88IwZVlfKaeeV2t/sg1T6EgOA8M r5vfijnY0S5Uie7AI/DozYhK61HIGShrZ0RRR6yvIS5E1N9iUWy1Z4+tHmnv+mrNEOcF 6wD0YXl5xDlfV3X5EPk+QiM0quhu5NK9jcswI=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.172.198 with SMTP id m6mr5008491vcz.79.1277922722454; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 11:32:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.96.210 with HTTP; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 11:32:02 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 11:32:02 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTimX-ml464zkvOEjztTWIFVSDdNn0wi1FZVoRwD-@mail.gmail.com>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
To: danfrost@cisco.com, stbryant@cisco.com, mpls-tp@ietf.org, mpls@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00163630ec9dec1f1a048a439196
Subject: [mpls-tp] Question RE:draft-frost-mpls-tp-loss-delay-02
X-BeenThere: mpls-tp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: MPLS-TP Mailing list <mpls-tp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp>, <mailto:mpls-tp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls-tp>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls-tp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-tp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp>, <mailto:mpls-tp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 18:32:07 -0000

Dear Editors and All,
the document states that DM and LM mechanisms described are applicable to
PW, LSPs (p2p bidirectional co-routed and associated as well as p2p, p2mp
unidirectional), and Sections. I didn't find reference to Segments or SPME.
Would described mechanisms apply to SPME? Your clarification greatly
appreciated.

Regards,
Greg

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email