Subject: [mpls-tp] Comments on "draft-farrel-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map-03"

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 17:04:12 +0800

Hi authors,
I have two questions with regard to your mip-mep-map-03 draft：

1) both section 4 and section 5 propose to use ach-tlv to identify an 
in-mip or an out-mip, so as to be processed by the corresponding in-mip or 
out-mip.
But owing to the hardware complexity, ach tlv may be transferred to be 
carried in OAM pdu ,and there maybe some difficulty to accomplish this 
function. 

2) section 5 also gives an option that use a reserved label to enhance 
solutions in section 4, however,  is it worthy to assign a dedicated label 
for such limited applications?

Best regards,
steven

--------------------------------------------------------
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.

---

From: Rolf Winter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 08:30:58 +0000

Steven,

> in-mip or an out-mip, so as to be processed by the corresponding in-mip
> or out-mip.

Could you give an example?

> solutions in section 4, however,  is it worthy to assign a dedicated
> label for such limited applications?

That is exactly what the WG needs to discuss.

Best,

	Rolf

NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL | Registered in England 2832014

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 18:50:26 +0800

> LS164 - Response to MPLS-TP ACH TLV Structure -02 WG Last Call (ref # 
020.02) - pdf body (
https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/file982.pdf)

> "While TLVs can be a flexible tool when defining protocol information, 
they can also limit 
> implementations so they can only be realized in general purpose CPUs. 
Not defining the 
> specific location data exists in a PDU due to having random order and a 
variety of length of 
> TLVs can force this. Limiting realization to CPUs will not only affect 
performance and also 
> significantly increase the complexity of interoperability testing. It 
can also limit use of 
> application specific gate oriented realizations. 
> "

IMO, the above comment should be considered.  If ACH TLV transfered to OAM 
PDU, it's difficult to accomplish the Proposed solution in Section 4 and 
Section 5.

Hope for your clarificaton! Thanks!

Best regards,
steven

Rolf Winter <[email-masked]> 
2010-10-25 16:30

收件人
"[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, 
"[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, 
"[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
抄送
"[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
主题
RE: Comments on "draft-farrel-mpls-tp-mip-mep-map-03"

Steven,

Best,

                 Rolf

NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London 
W3 6BL | Registered in England 2832014