Subject: Re: [mpls-tp] Timer negotiation in draft-asm-mpls-tp-bfd-cc-cv-00

From: "Annamaria Fulignoli" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 14:34:04 +0100

Hi Dai,

in a typical transport application today the period is the same in both directions of a p2p bidirectional path as  also reported  in MPLS-TP OAM Framework (draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-framework <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-framework>   ) section 5.1.

Best Regards,

Annamaria

________________________________

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: martedì 1 dicembre 2009 8.16
To: Annamaria Fulignoli; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Timer negotiation in draft-asm-mpls-tp-bfd-cc-cv-00 

Hi all, 

In  section 3.4.1 of draft-asm-mpls-tp-bfd-cc-cv-00 , it describes as this:     
For a bidirectional p2p transport path the  "Required Min RX Interval field" MUST be the same as "Desired Min TX  Interval field". 

My question is why these two values MUST be the same?  If they are provided with different values, what will happen? 

Expects your answer and thank you in advance! 

Regards, 
Dai 

--------------------------------------------------------
ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail is solely property of the sender's organization. This mail communication is confidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy and are not permitted to disclose the contents of this communication to others.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender.
This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam system.