IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mpls] Mail regarding RFC4875 (draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-p2mp )

Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Wed, 11 September 2013 12:11 UTC

Return-Path: <loa@pi.nu>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 294B721F91AB for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 05:11:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Qg7lQEdSW7x9 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 05:11:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu [83.168.239.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6A6321F9D70 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 05:11:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.5.61] (81-229-83-119-no65.business.telia.com [81.229.83.119]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by pipi.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 070541802038; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 14:11:35 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <52305DF8.2040701@pi.nu>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 14:11:36 +0200
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Charles Chen C <charles.c.chen@ericsson.com>
References: <9C056CD6D9A83C479E43BCBDAF1C416C1DF53803@ESGSCMB103.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <9C056CD6D9A83C479E43BCBDAF1C416C1DF53803@ESGSCMB103.ericsson.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "<mpls@ietf.org>" <mpls@ietf.org>, "<mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org>" <mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "<loa@mail01.huawei.com>" <loa@mail01.huawei.com>, "draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-p2mp@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-p2mp@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Mail regarding RFC4875 (draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-p2mp )
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 12:11:44 -0000

Charles,

Quick check. Are you pointing to something you think is not working
or just an alternative way of doing things?

/Loa

On 2013-09-11 08:46, Charles Chen C wrote:
> Hi, Dear authors,
>
> Sorry to disturb you and I have a question  about the new class SERO and
> SRRO in RFC4875.
>
> Since the content of these two objects are the same as ERO and RRO, is
> it necessary two new class?
>
> Is it possible that to reuse the ERO and RRO in this way that:
>
> When ERO/RRO are following after Sub LSP object, then they can be
> treated as SERO/SRRO for that Sub LSP?
>
> Just wondering your consideration on this part.  Thanks.
>
> BR.
>
> Lei Chen
>

-- 


Loa Andersson                        email: loa@mail01.huawei.com
Senior MPLS Expert                          loa@pi.nu
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email