Subject: Mismatch in Routing extension and OSPF extension

From: "Anu Divya" <[email-masked]>
Date: 13 Aug 2003 14:23:09 -0000

Hi,
      There looks a mismatch between  
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-routing-06.txt and
 	draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-09.txt.

There is no indication field information in the interface 
switching capability descriptor for PSC. But section 3.4.2 of 
Routing extension
talks about the standard SDH encoding and Aribitrary SDH encoding 
for PSC. The fields available in TLV 15 for PSC
are Switching cap, Encoding, Max LSP bandwidth at priority, 
minimum LSP bandwidth, Interface MTU. Encoding types defined in
"Generalized MPLS - signaling functional description " includes 
only one encoding type for SDH.(5 - SDH ITU-T G.707 / SONET ANSI 
T1.105). So no way we will be able to get the info for PSC from 15 
TLV.

But we have an indication field in TLV 15 for TDM to specify 
whether the interface supports Standard or Arbitrary SDH.

There is a mismatch between section 3.4 of OSPF extension and 
3.4.2 of Routing Extension.

Regards,
Anu

============================================

Routing Extension
3.4.2. Packet-Switch Capable

    On a PSC interface that supports Standard SDH encoding, an LSP 
at
    priority p could reserve any bandwidth allowed by the branch 
of the
    SDH hierarchy, with the leaf and the root of the branch being 
defined
    by the Minimum LSP Bandwidth and the Maximum LSP Bandwidth 
at
    priority p.

    On a PSC interface that supports Arbitrary SDH encoding, an 
LSP at
    priority p could reserve any bandwidth between the Minimum 
LSP
    Bandwidth and the Maximum LSP Bandwidth at priority p, 
provided that
    the bandwidth reserved by the LSP is a multiple of the Minimum 
LSP
    Bandwidth.

___________________________________________________
Meet your old school or college friends from
1 Million + database...
Click here to reunite www.batchmates.com/rediff.asp