Re: [mpls-tp] Questions about draft-zhang-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-02
zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn Mon, 13 December 2010 01:23 UTC
Return-Path: <zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn>
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 34CF83A6D53; Sun, 12 Dec 2010 17:23:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -97.535
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-97.535 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100,
BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753,
MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_DOUBLE_IP_LOOSE=0.76, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 F7Ac+XENq6XS;
Sun, 12 Dec 2010 17:22:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx5.zte.com.cn (mx6.zte.com.cn [63.218.89.70]) by
core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68C303A6D4E;
Sun, 12 Dec 2010 17:22:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.34.0.130] by mx5.zte.com.cn with surfront esmtp id
35101578366850; Mon, 13 Dec 2010 09:22:24 +0800 (CST)
Received: from [10.30.3.19] by [192.168.168.15] with StormMail ESMTP id
55813.2477328926; Mon, 13 Dec 2010 09:24:29 +0800 (CST)
Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse2.zte.com.cn with
ESMTP id oBD1O3Vq019187;
Mon, 13 Dec 2010 09:24:09 +0800 (CST) (envelope-from zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn)
In-Reply-To: <01b701cb98b7$29e67f80$7db37e80$@olddog.co.uk>
To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.4 March 27, 2005
Message-ID: <OFD73E832E.B6F4BCC2-ON482577F8.00039DD3-482577F8.0007FAB7@zte.com.cn>
From: zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 09:24:08 +0800
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.1FP4|July
25, 2010) at 2010-12-13 09:24:03, Serialize complete at 2010-12-13 09:24:03
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="=_alternative 0007FAB4482577F8_="
X-MAIL: mse2.zte.com.cn oBD1O3Vq019187
Cc: ccamp@ietf.org, mpls-tp-bounces@ietf.org,
draft-zhang-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp@tools.ietf.prg, mpls-tp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mpls-tp] Questions about
draft-zhang-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-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: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 01:23:00 -0000
Hi Adrian See in line Thanks :) Fei (as co-author) "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> 发件人: mpls-tp-bounces@ietf.org 2010-12-11 06:11 请答复 给 adrian@olddog.co.uk 收件人 <draft-zhang-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp@tools.ietf.prg> 抄送 mpls-tp@ietf.org 主题 [mpls-tp] Questions about draft-zhang-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-02 Hi, I have a few questions about draft-zhang-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-02 1. Why haven't you targeted this question at the CCAMP working group? [Fei] Actually, I have put them both in CCAMP and MPLS-TP working group. 2. Are you only extending the Extended Association object? Or will you also extend the Association object? In Section 1 you have: This document extends the Extended ASSOCIATION object to establish associated bidirectional LSPs. I think the registry of Association Types will apply equally to both objects. [Fei] Yeah, the Association types apply to both objects, but I need to put Tunnel ID and LSP ID into the Association ID field (TP's identifier requirements). Obviously ASSOCIATION object can not meet this requirements for there are only 16 bits in the field of Association ID. Furthermore, it will be great if Global_Node_ID can be considered to be put into the field of Association Source or Association ID. By the way, the format of MPLS-TP LSP Identifiers is Src-Global_Node_ID::Src-Tunnel_Num::Dst-Global_Node_ID::Dst-Tunnel_Num::LSP_Num 3. What is the value of redefining the Extended Association object? I think it is enough for you to reference the I-D that contains the definition. [Fei] Sorry for the unclear descriptions in the document, what I want to do is only to define a new Assoication type in the scope of the Extended Association object. Thanks, Adrian _______________________________________________ mpls-tp mailing list mpls-tp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp
- [mpls-tp] Questions about draft-zhang-mpls-tp-rsv… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [mpls-tp] Questions about draft-zhang-mpls-tp… zhang.fei3