Re: [PWOT] RE: draft-danenberg-sonet-ces-mpls-mib-00.txt

David,

>Regarding draft-malis-sonet-ces-mpls-02.txt, I suggest to add an option to
>encapsulate the data without CEM label. It is applicable for systems that do
>not use the LDP procedure for CEM/VC negotiation (such manual configuration
>or RSVP-TE).

I think you might have missed a couple of things in the draft:

Section 5 says "Each packet has one or more MPLS labels, ...", so you don't 
need the CEM label if you really don't want it.  Section 8 also says, in 
discussing the LDP signaling, "Alternatively, static label assignment may 
be used, or a dedicated traffic engineered LSP may be used for each CEM 
circuit."  So I think you already get what you wanted.

I would also like to point out that when using two labels, even if you only 
wish to provision the circuits and not use the LDP signaling, the inner 
labels can still be provisioned within a particular point-to-point traffic 
tunnel that was set up using RSVP-TE.  Since the inner labels only have 
visibility and significance at the endpoints of the traffic tunnel 
(assuming you're not using penultimate label popping), provisioning isn't 
onerous, especially if you're using a provisioning application or tool of 
some sort.  Of course, the degenerate case is that you have only one TDM 
stream per traffic tunnel, but that's up to the operator to decide, not the 
protocol designers.  And as I pointed out, the draft allows you to only use 
one label if you so desire.

Cheers,
Andy

_______________________________________________
pwot mailing list
pwot@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwot