IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mpls-tp] WG LC draft-lm-pwe3-mpls-tp-gal-in-pw-00.txt

Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com> Fri, 18 February 2011 07:07 UTC

Return-Path: <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.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 A03EB3A68DD; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 23:07:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, 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 GdrWklM+u8kJ; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 23:07:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ilptbmg01.ecitele.com (ilptbmg01-out.ecitele.com [147.234.242.234]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 247803A6A84; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 23:07:32 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: 93eaf2e7-b7b9cae000002a0e-67-4d5e1ad78877
Received: from ILPTEXCH02.ecitele.com ( [147.234.245.181]) by ilptbmg01.ecitele.com (Symantec Brightmail Gateway) with SMTP id 58.04.10766.7DA1E5D4; Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:08:07 +0200 (IST)
Received: from ILPTMAIL02.ecitele.com ([147.234.244.213]) by ILPTEXCH02.ecitele.com ([147.234.245.181]) with mapi; Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:08:04 +0200
From: Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>
To: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:05:19 +0200
Thread-Topic: [mpls-tp] WG LC draft-lm-pwe3-mpls-tp-gal-in-pw-00.txt
Thread-Index: AcvPN6zTJGq/0XxDTGy6v16DWGU3fgAAocFM
Message-ID: <A3C5DF08D38B6049839A6F553B331C76D6FB8BEA8B@ILPTMAIL02.ecitele.com>
References: <AANLkTikcnCa5DQZyGgD_QawiQ_57KKA4BXQm7iRRayKA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikcnCa5DQZyGgD_QawiQ_57KKA4BXQm7iRRayKA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_A3C5DF08D38B6049839A6F553B331C76D6FB8BEA8BILPTMAIL02eci_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAARci5Uo=
Cc: Robert Rennison <Robert.Rennison@ecitele.com>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "mpls-tp@ietf.org" <mpls-tp@ietf.org>, Mishael Wexler <Mishael.Wexler@ecitele.com>, "lihan@chinamobile.com" <lihan@chinamobile.com>, pwe3 <pwe3@ietf.org>, Rotem, HUANG, Feng F <Feng.f.Huang@alcatel-sbell.com.cn>, Cohen <Rotem.Cohen@ecitele.com>
Subject: Re: [mpls-tp] WG LC draft-lm-pwe3-mpls-tp-gal-in-pw-00.txt
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: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 07:07:37 -0000

Greg, and all,
I concur with Greg.
Using GAL with PWs is highly problematic, and all the related issues (raised during the poll on accepting this draft as a WG item) have not, AFAIK, been resolved.

Regards,
     Sasha

________________________________
From: mpls-tp-bounces@ietf.org [mpls-tp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Greg Mirsky [gregimirsky@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 8:47 AM
To: Luca Martini
Cc: mpls@ietf.org; mpls-tp@ietf.org; lihan@chinamobile.com; pwe3; HUANG Feng F
Subject: [mpls-tp] WG LC draft-lm-pwe3-mpls-tp-gal-in-pw-00.txt

Dear Authors and All,
prior to the meeting in Bejing and acceptance of this proposal as WG document Luca and I agreed that use of GAL with PW VCCV presents a problem.
I was not attending the IETF-79, nor I found discussion of this issue in the minutes. I think that this issue should be specified, explained. In my view, this document updates not only RFC 5586
but RFC 5085 too.

Regards,
Greg

Comment to draft-lm-pwe3-mpls-tp-gal-in-pw-00.txt

On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 10:14 AM, Luca Martini <lmartini@cisco.com<mailto:lmartini@cisco.com>> wrote:
Greg,

You are correct , the proposed update does not propose any changes to VCCV.
However the problem with vccv is not as simple as to ask for a new code point from IANA.
Given the good amount of discussion on this point, we should probably have a discussion in Beijing.

Luca



On 10/29/2010 05:07 PM, Greg Mirsky wrote:

Dear Authors,
I think that proposed update of the Section 4.2. RFC 5586 makes it possible
to use GAL on MPLS-TP PW that uses Control Word. I consider it to be
conflict between PW VCCV CC types because use of GAL is not negotiated
through PW VCCV negotiation. To avoid such situation I propose:

   - in Section 5 request IANA to assign new CC Type "MPLS Generic
   Associated Channel Label"
   - assign precedence to new CC Type that affects Section 7 RFC 5085

Regards,
Greg




_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email