[mpls] Need clarifications in the draft "draft-ietf-mpls-tp-on-demand-cv-00"
Babu Subramani <sbabufss@gmail.com> Fri, 20 August 2010 17:17 UTC
Return-Path: <sbabufss@gmail.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 9EAE93A6AF7; Fri, 20 Aug 2010 10:17:49 -0700 (PDT)
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=[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 ZCa4k8cstEVr; Fri, 20 Aug 2010 10:17:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qy0-f172.google.com (mail-qy0-f172.google.com [209.85.216.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5ABAF3A6AEF; Fri, 20 Aug 2010 10:17:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qyk1 with SMTP id 1so659697qyk.10 for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 20 Aug 2010 10:18:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:date:message-id :subject:from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=TidClXerc0OTHaFovSEyeiZUDyt/WvyvGB+Nc2QpLMo=; b=f0ws0RR29txUN2F5nR0EmoCF0GO9B7MWEIXCDkRBvqxI0jApFYvXESJssnnBsV2/1z /k5j14wqZm/Uc+v9QRYnKfKEIVTcjQTYpnbFP4ASFdvEayphFUDSBaowzLAVgdOJO4tR tk48T80TRzFZdUWMn/ShfpoMLeQlIFqhkrncc=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=MYdwjuUexumvmh7TaOG1R1cFpM8OL0Z8r8QRvsBMjZ4L7s2iianztwMR+VnvYABV1G DwQvSyJXcaVtv8MBiF2bVaapA6l/GwvDb7oaysZ0YmzpS2aSbzpOqkaD6Q0dXJvhLzAQ a36urUNgB1Hti6YnGQnRzBWCU595+NrDbfSsQ=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.103.106 with SMTP id j42mr121871qco.217.1282324671288; Fri, 20 Aug 2010 10:17:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.182.130 with HTTP; Fri, 20 Aug 2010 10:17:51 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 22:47:51 +0530
Message-ID: <AANLkTikRAq9+yY4cwo-soFB_=WbjAEtv4Tuq_ajwMXau@mail.gmail.com>
From: Babu Subramani <sbabufss@gmail.com>
To: mpls-tp@ietf.org, mpls@ietf.org, Nitin Bahadur <nitinb@juniper.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: [mpls] Need clarifications in the draft "draft-ietf-mpls-tp-on-demand-cv-00"
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: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 17:17:49 -0000
Hi, The draft “draft-ietf-mpls-tp-on-demand-cv-00” mentions the “Static PW sub-TLV” that is more aligned with PW Fec29 AIIType2. But the TLV does not have the AGI field that is applicable for Type2. Will that be added? In addition to the above, if the draft is not mentioning about other FEC types, does it mean that PW with Fec128 is not applicable for MPLS_TP? Or, will you define a separate sub TLV for that? Does it also mean that PW with Fec129 AIIType1 is not applicable for MPLS_TP? Or, will you define a separate sub TLV for that? Even the mpls-tp-identifier draft mentions that Fec129AIIType2 is the one that fits into MPLS-TP. I guess that it is better to add explicit text to state the same. Could the authors please clarify? Thanks, Babu
- [mpls] Need clarifications in the draft "draft-ie… Babu Subramani
- Re: [mpls] Need clarifications in the draft "draf… Eric Gray