Re: [mpls] [PWE3] 1588 over MPLS draft

[Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]>]

  On 14/07/2010 09:53, Mach Chen wrote:
> Hi Shahram,
>
> For me, the Label Range is more like a mechanim to notify related 
> nodes that some LSPs are dedicated for PTP messages
Yes
> IMHO, since the objective is to tell related MPLS nodes which LSPs are 
> PTP LSPs, an indication in the signaling(RSVP-TE/GMPLS/LDP) is enough 
> and seems more common. And it will avoid the strict requirement of 
> "the network and all nodes required to support the Label range".
> In addition, there should be some mechanims(e.g., ISIS/OSPF 
> extensions) for nodes to advertise their PTP capability hence to help 
> PTP LSPs computation.
>
Yes.

I would anticipate that the path would be set up using RSVP-TE since 
this is a better match to the needs of a timing path. However you could 
do it with a separate instance of the IGP and then use LDP, so we should 
not exclude that case.

Stewart