IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Thu, 01 July 2010 07:35 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 5EBD33A67C3; Thu, 1 Jul 2010 00:35:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.97
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.97 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.629, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 pR6pZb0AoDal; Thu, 1 Jul 2010 00:35:44 -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 8C2283A67A1; Thu, 1 Jul 2010 00:35:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vws14 with SMTP id 14so420779vws.31 for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 01 Jul 2010 00:35:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=WnbJtjthGjQ93qvSpm5lzsYfH3vgdNsavmLszcU6OKc=; b=X4Ns+3YZ0H50/+ZUpVG+DROsqHmCQbzzoV3ALOwLHyufk4p+6bWTbewY0TQgvGlP+/ PC+hs7+ZQruN3fYecj0NNnCdl7aX6aEP/9YXtLfrLCyFjtckoAysLarPwcT2TF9zwOnC hsqoJHkvK4eBLERxUi/LmISLb1v10S5+Jw4QQ=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=ilpGsbtEEpKCWfA7sTMKVcrwbYwfY4xa72V0EPwKQ+8YVLhv4Uf+BqVka1Hl5ga1BA 9yzax0a/1xzAxVreRwt1ymPhIgwFMYabORGbpbdJ97GuWm2mUOYxZjFdZgloHzS9x00Q yekLsZreK2hGs4vsBGiY/A5WFquq+JTxImJqw=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.63.71 with SMTP id a7mr76520vci.11.1277969743610; Thu, 01 Jul 2010 00:35:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.96.210 with HTTP; Thu, 1 Jul 2010 00:35:43 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20100701073038.GA19177@cisco.com>
References: <AANLkTimX-ml464zkvOEjztTWIFVSDdNn0wi1FZVoRwD-@mail.gmail.com> <20100701073038.GA19177@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 00:35:43 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTin1urGA9UcWMk8Xs2Bhz2QMnYlzBqVsnpuCifk_@mail.gmail.com>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
To: Dan Frost <danfrost@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: mpls@ietf.org, mpls-tp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [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: Thu, 01 Jul 2010 07:35:47 -0000

Dear Dan,
yes, in essence, the SPME is an LSP but it's a "special" LSP as it
doesn't directly carry client's load. Perhaps you might consider
explicitly listing SPME.

Regards,
Greg

On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 12:30 AM, Dan Frost <danfrost@cisco.com> wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 11:32:02AM -0700, Greg Mirsky wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Certainly, since an SPME is just an LSP.
>
> -d
>
>> Regards,
>> Greg
>

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email