Subject: Re: Static VPLS MAC withdrawal draft

From: Lizhong Jin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 23:11:13 +0800

Hi all,
I read this draft, and it is useful to have such MAC withdraw mechanism.
Besides the comments from Sasha, as for the default retransmission timer,
it should be careful to have this. When the total retransmission time is
larger than the MAC aging time, then it is not necessary to retransmit
MAC-withdraw message. And in order to be more reliable, when transmission,
three instances of the message in succession,
separated with an appropriate delay is recommended.

Lizhong

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 08 May 2012 20:05:31 +0100
> From: Giles Heron <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Static VPLS MAC withdrawal draft
> Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="US-ASCII"
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> The following draft was presented at IETF in Paris:
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boutros-l2vpn-mpls-tp-mac-wd-00
>
> The authors have asked for it to be adopted as a WG draft, but at this
> stage
> the chairs' view is that it probably hasn't had enough sets of eyes on it.
>
> So this email is to request that those on the list take a read of the draft
> and send comments back to the list.  Depending on the response we get we
> may
> then ask the WG if they feel happy adopting this as a WG draft.
>
> Nabil and Giles
>
>
>
>