Re: [mpls] draft-ietf-mpls-forwarding

[t.petch <[e-mail]>]

Curtis

I just finished reading this - and see that the IESG have approved it.
Ah well, perhaps the RFC Editor will be interested.

s.1 /advise/advice/

   CC-CV Connectivity Check and Connectivity Verification
we have used Continuity Check elsewhere (e.g. mpls-tp-oam-framework)

s2.3

"For example, an on-chip buffer capable of handling 4K packets
   of 64 bytes in length, or 256KB, corresponds to 2 msec on a 10 Mb/s"

My maths is hopeless.   4K packets of 64byte is 256Kbyte which is
2048Kbit  on a 10Mbit/s link is 2048K divided by 10M/s which is '2mS' -
why do I keep getting 200mS or 2dS?

s2.4.5.1 5)
/closest to the bottom of stack/closer to the bottom of stack/

s2.6.4
we have used  Continuity Check elsewhere (e.g. mpls-tp-oam-framework)

s3
This is quite cryptic where no references are given, e.g. Q40 for
Pseudowire OAM, MPLS-TP OAM, Layer-2 OAM Interworking

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Curtis Villamizar" <[e-mail]>
To: "t.petch" <[e-mail]>
Cc: <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2014 9:06 PM

>
> In message <00ce01cf1de4$45fb9ba0$[e-mail]>
> "t.petch" writes:
>
> > Curtis
> >
> > MP2MP Multipoint to Point ?
>
> Multipoint to multipoint.  Ie: capable of supporting <*,G> though
> possibly for a policy constrained value of "*".  Some chips can do it
> but I'm not sure what routers can do (whether software supports it)
> and if so if anyone deploys MP2MP.  At least some P2MP for
> distribution of stuff like video, maybe a lot but I don't know.
> Plenty of MP2P since LDP is inherently MP2P.
>
> > I would like the first sentence of the Abstract to start the
> > Introduction - otherwise there is no intended audience (and I tend
to
> > skip Abstracts when I know I am going to be interested in a
document).
>
> The intended audience is in the intro later on in Section 1.4 ("Target
> Audience").
>
> > And is that second clause for Operators eg
> > a basis for operators to evaluate forwarding implementations.
>
> It is meant for both operators and system designers.  System designers
> (ie: people working for router vendors that buy off the shelf silicon)
> need to pick a forwarding chip long before operators are evaluating.
> See Section 1.4.
>
> In the case of forwarding the "implementor" is designing a chip.  The
> "system designer" is using it in a product.  The operator is (we hope)
> trying to find out what if any bad decisions were made in an
> evaluation to determine what effect any shortcomings would have before
> deploying and finding out the hard way.
>
> > (more to follow - the I-D is big and my reading is slow:-(
>
> No problem.  Thanks for taking a look.
>
> > Tom Petch
>
> Curtis
>