Subject: RE: draft-ietf-mpls-ftn-mib-00.txt is now available

From: Cheenu Srinivasan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 18:45:16 -0400

Curtis,

Curtis Villamizar wrote:
> 
> The DSCP, or more correctly a 64 bit DSCP mask, with one bit per
> possible DSCP value should be part of the FEC.  Other implementations
> (will) allow different DSCP values for the same IP prefix to be routed
> onto different LSP.  Where all DSCP values map into a single LSP, then
> the mask is all ones.  (The MIB should not be constrained to match a
> specific vendors implementation limitations.)  There is no way to
> apply different setup and holding priorities, different adaptivity
> parameters, and local protect to some DSCP values and not to other
> DSCP values without this capability.

We can put in mapping of DSCP values to LSPs/Tunnels if this group
thinks its needed. What this MIB is not meant to do is DSCP remapping
which should be done in the diffserv MIB.

> Address ranges should not be used.  Instead CIDR address prefixes
> should be used.

We allowed address ranges since this is a superset of CIDR prefixes.
An LSR can choose to only support CIDR prefixes by choosing to only
support those ranges expressible as CIDR prefixes.

> In mplsFTNMapIfIndex, is this the physical interface that the LSP goes
> out on or is it the ifindex applied to the LSP for implementations
> that map an ifindex onto an LSP?

This is the interface index of the MPLS layer.

Cheenu

---

From: Marcus Brunner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 11:48:33 +0200

> Cheenu Srinivasan wrote:

Sure not. It really is just meant as an additional FEC descriptor
without any additional action behind.

Marcus

-- 

Dr. Marcus Brunner
C&C Research Laboratories
NEC Europe Ltd.

E-Mail: [email-masked]
WWW:    http://www.ccrle.nec.de/
personal home page: http://www.tik.ee.ethz.ch/~brunner

Adenauerplatz 6
D-69115 Heidelberg
Germany

Phone: +49 (0)6221/ 9051129
Fax:   +49 (0)6221/ 9051155

---

From: "Thomas D. Nadeau" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 08:32:46 -0400

>without any additional action behind.

         I agree with Cheenu, lets hear from others about whether
or not they think this value is important and should be included
as an attribute.

         --Tom

---

From: Curtis Villamizar <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 11:03:50 -0400

> without any additional action behind.

This is not DSCP remapping.  It is mapping DSCP onto separate LSPs.
The diffserv MIB does not cover that capability.

Curtis