Subject: [mpls-tp] Need clarifications in the draft "draft-ietf-mpls-tp-on-demand-cv-00"

From: Babu Subramani <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 22:47:51 +0530

Hi,

The draft “draft-ietf-mpls-tp-on-demand-cv-00” mentions the “Static PW
sub-TLV” that is more aligned with PW Fec29 AIIType2.

But the TLV does not have the AGI field that is applicable for Type2.
Will that be added?

In addition to the above, if the draft is not mentioning about other
FEC types, does it mean that PW with Fec128 is not applicable for
MPLS_TP? Or, will you define a separate sub TLV for that?

Does it also mean that PW with Fec129 AIIType1 is not applicable for
MPLS_TP? Or, will you define a separate sub TLV for that?

Even the mpls-tp-identifier draft mentions that Fec129AIIType2 is the
one that fits into MPLS-TP.

I guess that it is better to add explicit text to state the same.

Could the authors please clarify?

Thanks,
Babu

---

From: Eric Gray <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 15:55:34 -0400

Babu,

	Thanks for your review and comments.

	We will discuss these questions and (hopefully) make some 
recommendation for addressing them on the mailing list in the 
near future.

--
Eric Gray 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Babu Subramani
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 1:18 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Nitin Bahadur
Subject: [mpls] Need clarifications in the draft "draft-ietf-mpls-tp-on-demand-cv-00"

Hi,

The draft "draft-ietf-mpls-tp-on-demand-cv-00" mentions the "Static PW
sub-TLV" that is more aligned with PW Fec29 AIIType2.

Thanks,
Babu
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls