IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mpls] working group last call ondraft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map

"Shahram Davari" <davari@broadcom.com> Tue, 04 December 2012 09:33 UTC

Return-Path: <davari@broadcom.com>
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 4FE1F21F8602 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Dec 2012 01:33:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.878
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.878 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.721, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ggnAvXKK4XPs for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Dec 2012 01:33:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mms3.broadcom.com (mms3.broadcom.com [216.31.210.19]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 903F521F84FD for <mpls@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Dec 2012 01:33:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.16.192.232] by mms3.broadcom.com with ESMTP (Broadcom SMTP Relay (Email Firewall v6.5)); Tue, 04 Dec 2012 01:28:54 -0800
X-Server-Uuid: B86B6450-0931-4310-942E-F00ED04CA7AF
Received: from SJEXCHCAS07.corp.ad.broadcom.com (10.16.203.17) by SJEXCHHUB02.corp.ad.broadcom.com (10.16.192.232) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.247.2; Tue, 4 Dec 2012 01:31:27 -0800
Received: from SJEXCHMB12.corp.ad.broadcom.com ( [fe80::bc15:c1e1:c29a:36f7]) by SJEXCHCAS07.corp.ad.broadcom.com ( [::1]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Tue, 4 Dec 2012 01:31:06 -0800
From: Shahram Davari <davari@broadcom.com>
To: Rolf Winter <Rolf.Winter@neclab.eu>
Thread-Topic: [mpls] working group last call ondraft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map
Thread-Index: AQHN0eJMrDrf0hTkh0+f0Jf1wk5ixZgI2e+A//+Gd40=
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2012 09:31:05 +0000
Message-ID: <86E44E2B-5306-49D7-BA75-BAE914E8B031@broadcom.com>
References: <5098CF68.2000105@pi.nu> <016e01cdc675$3b64d6b0$b22e8410$@olddog.co.uk> <4A6CE49E6084B141B15C0713B8993F281BD2E957@SJEXCHMB12.corp.ad.broa> <027c01cdc7c8$d5500430$7ff00c90$@olddog.co.uk> <F0E40950-2607-4AB5-BB17-88EFC41C1603@yahoo.com> <791AD3077F94194BB2BDD13565B6295D5552490A@Hydra.office.hd> <4A6CE49E6084B141B15C0713B8993F281BD2FBBB@SJEXCHMB12.corp.ad.broa> <38DFCE5F-A496-4AAC-A2C5-0450B5260EAD@broadcom.com> <CAGEmCZyDCBV-vdA96Amnx-08U-Xq_6t+mnF34k8o_8tX+4z2VQ@mail.gmail.c> <4A6CE49E6084B141B15C0713B8993F281BD338A7@SJEXCHMB12.corp.ad.broa> <791AD3077F94194BB2BDD13565B6295D555415E0@DAPHNIS.office.hd> <B5CDD7D1-CBD7-4E74-ADE6-0DEBE26E3757@broadcom.com> <791AD3077F94194BB2BDD13565B6295D55542847@DAPHNIS.office.hd> <4A6CE49E6084B141B15C0713B8993F281BD389A3@SJEXCHMB12.corp.ad.broa> <XNM1$7$0$0$$6$1$2$A$5003751U50bd483f@hitachi.com> <4A6CE49E6084B141B15C0713B8993F281BD38CA7@SJEXCHMB12.corp.ad.broa>, <XNM1$7$0$0$$6$1$2$A$5003753U50bd5093@hitachi.com> <28AF076D-2D85-4B79-8A7E-0C1AE39D01DC@broadcom.com>, <791AD3077F94194BB2BDD13565B6295D55542A76@DAPHNIS.office.hd>
In-Reply-To: <791AD3077F94194BB2BDD13565B6295D55542A76@DAPHNIS.office.hd>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-WSS-ID: 7CA31DC739W4993986-13-01
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] working group last call ondraft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map
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: Tue, 04 Dec 2012 09:33:30 -0000

How about the G-ACH TLV that immediately follows ACH. 

Regards,
Shahram


On Dec 4, 2012, at 12:46 AM, "Rolf Winter" <Rolf.Winter@neclab.eu> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> quite some time ago we asked whether we could mandate TLV ordering (at least mandating one out of N TLVs to be the first in the OAM PDU) in order to allow efficient implementation in HW. This actually would be a good thing in this case. The responses we got weren't quite positive (which is actually quite a positive description of the responses we got) but I don't see that the GACh RFC is actually disallowing it. Still we would need to go back and make changes to a few RFCs. That was also something people weren't really happy about. Again, these were some of the constraints we worked with which led to what is on the table right now. We weren't blind to HW considerations, vice versa as you can see when you look at the appendix that was removed in the latest version of the document.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Rolf
> 
> NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL | Registered in England 2832014 
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Puneet Agarwal [mailto:pagarwal@broadcom.com]
>> Sent: Dienstag, 4. Dezember 2012 06:44
>> To: hideki.endo.es@hitachi.com
>> Cc: Shahram Davari; Rolf Winter; mpls@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [mpls] working group last call ondraft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-
>> mep-map
>> 
>> Hi hideki,
>> 
>> Is the determination that the mip identifier is present in the same
>> location  always in the pdu or is it variable (based on oam msg type)?
>> 
>> Thx
>> 
>> Puneet
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Dec 3, 2012, at 5:24 PM, "hideki.endo.es@hitachi.com"
>> <hideki.endo.es@hitachi.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email