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

Dear Luca,
I see at least two issues:

   - use of GAL for PW, in my view, is another VCCV CC type that has to be
   negotiated as described in RFC 5085.
   - use of GAL creates ambiguous situation when PW CW is used. The benefit
   from extending GAL in PW, as I see, is for PWs that are not required to use
   PW CW. That might be a good enough reason to update RFC 5586 as proposed in
   the document but we must address use cases of GAL in PWs that require
   presence PW CW. If we prohibit or even discourage use of GAL for these PWs
   that have PW VCCV as native Associated Channel, then architecture of ACh for
   MPLS-TP PW not simplified as result of adopting the proposal.

Regards,
Greg

On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 7:46 AM, Luca Martini <lmartini@cisco.com> wrote:

> Greg,
>
> Sorry, but I do not remember the point you mention.
> Can you explain again here ?
> Thanks.
> Luca
>
>
> On 02/17/11 23:47, Greg Mirsky wrote:
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > mpls mailing list
> > mpls@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>
>