[mpls-tp] Question on MPLS-TP OAM UMC code in draft-ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers-03
binny jeshan <binnyjeshan@gmail.com> Mon, 21 February 2011 08:59 UTC
Return-Path: <binnyjeshan@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 91E443A6FBE for <mpls-tp@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 00:59:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 CEL2SXVyaduf for <mpls-tp@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 00:59:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vw0-f42.google.com (mail-vw0-f42.google.com [209.85.212.42]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B285F3A6F84 for <mpls-tp@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 00:59:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: by vws10 with SMTP id 10so1356293vws.15 for <mpls-tp@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 01:00:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=wnxExxU3O4l1QHfODlplBOTdEmbmlx74Pu2y6NFIR9k=; b=Nl1Avhy41Jul2gL8i8iL1JXujD8BB3sDXfGUkDMZruKwldXdQCYWP0ewHvHQlth00T IB3uRKbB/xD3gHYiqkqpRvhdsx9jmOUFkUWAvVmVjrc4EmZc5qCuv4uG5qovYLkOYaQV hbijwKBfWeDRV1CVuZHrSS84QjLCRTIaXEisw=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=VXblKthtW6kioLTDSWGDROmAWGoBcS5rTwj28+7q9AhEH4+bSnEkD+OGCJZ2c2fo2f Ho/C8sxAzoSEDMxMpDZssIUrPDh2fvJWTOlo+qdp/EqXl/dgYOB0jPOIeOU7n0dUElYE Y/rwAB4/HW/vH3u6aenVMIVsT9dlcPxrs9uU8=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.160.37 with SMTP id xh5mr1409164vdb.249.1298278803560; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 01:00:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.52.163.69 with HTTP; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 01:00:03 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 17:00:03 +0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=TT4BpjPTrOuiHqm4N+YdEs-sY6i-5G=Kdh7sQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: binny jeshan <binnyjeshan@gmail.com>
To: mpls-tp@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="bcaec53f944fe7d8e1049cc7166a"
Subject: [mpls-tp] Question on MPLS-TP OAM UMC code in draft-ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers-03
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, 21 Feb 2011 08:59:23 -0000
Hello draft authors, I have a question for some clarity regarding UMC code in section 7.1.1 of http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers-03 . It says, In this case, the MEG_ID is a string of up to thirteen characters, each character being either alphabetic (i.e. A-Z) or numeric (i.e. 0-9) characters. It consists of two subfields: the ICC (as defined in section 3) followed by a unique MEG code (UMC). The UMC MUST be unique within the organization identified by the ICC. As i understand from the above, UMC code should not be configurable for each MEG created for a path, but instead all MEG for an operator should use UMC allocated by ITU. Please correct me if i am anywhere wrong in my understanding. Please let me know if your opinion is different. Thanks, Binny.
- [mpls-tp] Question on MPLS-TP OAM UMC code in dra… binny jeshan