IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mpls] Question about RFC 4875 (bud node behavior)

"Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com> Tue, 08 March 2011 02:53 UTC

Return-Path: <zali@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE2943A68B1 for <mpls@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Mar 2011 18:53:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.149
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.149 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 8zXkW40Z1kHW for <mpls@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Mar 2011 18:53:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com (sj-iport-4.cisco.com [171.68.10.86]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 081A33A68B0 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Mar 2011 18:53:07 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=zali@cisco.com; l=1464; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1299552861; x=1300762461; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:in-reply-to:references:from:to:cc; bh=qPkiCwHbSrRfn0y2NLopT1K0IvAB1deB/1zt6o4VMSU=; b=XFgr2CvBse3mgEAXwTHVBDndDVbtm6Vuym6EJ4cnEE37vHHUij3tZErA aRPJ1UoODfVCnvIEexAMyQXQDO4olHmAuoVfVuKYSyBzHRTSJ4/SQNSMu Hyu6YYKfxfBX8dFINFP5U0kTqhBJlVShjgjsMkSUkKs9ioGsv6OnFZw3e w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvMAABcpdU2tJXG//2dsb2JhbACEK5Nljkd0oimLAwaRKYElg0V4BIUdimE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.62,281,1297036800"; d="scan'208";a="272217103"
Received: from rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com ([173.37.113.191]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 08 Mar 2011 02:54:21 +0000
Received: from xbh-rcd-101.cisco.com (xbh-rcd-101.cisco.com [72.163.62.138]) by rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p282sKoP003125; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 02:54:20 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-103.cisco.com ([72.163.62.145]) by xbh-rcd-101.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 7 Mar 2011 20:54:20 -0600
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2011 20:54:19 -0600
Message-ID: <7CC717E2F49DAA4A827DA3FEA237111B04294865@XMB-RCD-103.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <96327EF53EF71A48806DE2DFC034D57F0E0853E1@xmb-sjc-22b.amer.cisco.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [mpls] Question about RFC 4875 (bud node behavior)
Thread-Index: AcvbRixCt1F0NEKITNasCDH+Xjn1AgB2PZOgAAcY0UA=
References: <AANLkTinKVWqPkgkK_a0+okyOHe01fb=PiVhf_5k=yRLm@mail.gmail.com> <96327EF53EF71A48806DE2DFC034D57F0E0853E1@xmb-sjc-22b.amer.cisco.com>
From: "Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com>
To: "Santiago Alvarez (saalvare)" <saalvare@cisco.com>, Egor Zimin <lesnix@gmail.com>, mpls@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Mar 2011 02:54:20.0901 (UTC) FILETIME=[1FA71150:01CBDD3C]
Cc: Валерий Ястребов <vyastrebov@amt.ru>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Question about RFC 4875 (bud node behavior)
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 02:53:08 -0000

Hi- 

Please see in-line.  

Thanks

Regards ... Zafar 


> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: mpls-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Egor
> > Zimin
> > Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2011 7:01 AM
> > To: mpls@ietf.org
> > Cc: Валерий Ястребов
> > Subject: [mpls] Question about RFC 4875 (bud node behavior)
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Are there any document, which specify label allocation behavior for
> bud
> > nodes in P2MP LSPs (described in 4875) ?
> > Are there any statements about PHP on such nodes ?
> > If no, may be, it has a sense to describe label allocation process on
> bud
> > nodes in more details ?

Please have a look at the following draft for signaling non-php behavior. 

http://trac.tools.ietf.org/rfcmarkup/draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping

Thanks

Regards.. Zafar 

> >
> > At the moment there are at least two different implementations exist:
> > 1) Using Implicit/Explicit-null labels, which cause unnecessary
> replication
> > before bud nodes
> > 2) Using unreserved labels value
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Egor Zimin
> > _______________________________________________
> > mpls mailing list
> > mpls@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email