Re: [PWE3] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe3-endpoint-fast-protection-01 - RFC4447

[Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]>]

On 05/08/2014 15:53, Yimin Shen wrote:
> Hi Stewart, Sasha,
>
> Every PE allocates PW labels from per-platform label space. This draft doesn't change this. In addition, a protector maintains a separate label table for each primary/protected PE that it protects. This label table contains the PW labels allocated by the primary/protected PE from its own "per-platform" label space. Hope this clarifies it.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> /Yimin
This all needs to be much clearer in the draft.

The protector in this context is I assume the receiving PE, not the 
protecting PE?

S

>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexander Vainshtein [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2014 10:00 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; pwe3; [e-mail]; Yimin Shen
> Subject: RE: [PWE3] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe3-endpoint-fast-protection-01 - RFC4447
>
> Stewart,
> I fully agree with you that using PW labels from a  label space that is not a per-platform one requires an explicit update to RFC 4447.
> My comment on this point has been triggered by your saying that you *think* that RFC 4447 explicitly requires per-platform label space.
> Just wanted to clarify that this is indeed the case.
>
> Regards,
>         Sasha
> Email: [e-mail]
> Mobile: [phone]
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2014 4:38 PM
>> To: Alexander Vainshtein; Yimin Shen
>> Cc: [e-mail]; pwe3; [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [PWE3] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pwe3-endpoint-fast-
>> protection-01 - RFC4447
>>
>>
>>>>> [1] This draft is completely based on the PWE3 and the MS-PW
>>>> architecture. It is also based on RFC 5331 " MPLS Upstream Label
>>>> Assignment and Context-Specific Label Space". So ideally readers
>>>> should be familiar with that RFC.
>>>> As far as I can see context labels have not been introduced into the
>>>> PWE3 architecture. There is some reference to their use for P2MP PWs,
>>>> but not in the P2P case. Indeed I think that RFC4447 notes explicitly
>>>> that in the case where the configuration of PWs is signaled by LDP
>>>> the platform label space must be used. The least that you need to do
>>>> is to update RFC4447.
>>>>
>>> [[Sasha]] yes, RFC 4447 explicitly requires the PW labels to be allocated
>> from the per-platform label space.
>>> And according to RFC 5331 per-platform label space is a special case of the
>> label context.
>> However RRC5331 does not update RFC4447, so it must be assumed that the
>> original definition of per-platform label space applies to PWs.
>>
>> - Stewart
>>
> .
>


-- 
For corporate legal information go to:

http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html