Subject: RE: question on mplsFTNActionType in MPLS FTN MIB

From: Jean-Bertos Simo <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 10:40:43 -0500

Thanks Tom.
 
I would like a minor correction to be done in the examples in the FTN MIB. I
think mplsFTNMask should be set to 0x02 instead of 0x40 for destination
address only.
 
Jean-Bertos

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: November 7, 2001 10:26 AM
To: Jean-Bertos Simo
Cc: [email-masked]'
Subject: Re: question on mplsFTNActionType in MPLS FTN MIB

        My interpretation of this is that it is treated as
an access-list entry. That is, if a FEC-NHLFE mapping
exists with an action of "drop", then the operator has programmed
this specifically to matching a FEC and have these packets 
dropped. Now whether dropped means "avoid" or "discard" is
something that was left to the implementations. It is reasonable for 
an implementation to interpret this as "do not forward this FEC with 
MPLS, but forward it using other means", but I do not know of any
implementations that allow this. I believe that it is typical that if
MPLS is enabled and can forward traffic, that it will.  

        Does anyone (operators in particular)  think that it is useful to 
constrain the definition of discard to mean "delete/drop" or "avoid"? 
Another option would be to break this into two enumerations: "avoid" 
and "discard".

        --Tom

Can anyone tell me which of the following action is the correct
interpretation of mplsFTNActionType = drop in the FTN MIB?

1. discard the packet (no MPLS labelling, no IP forwarding) or 
2. forward the packet using IP (no MPLS labelling). 

In case the answer is 2), what are the type of circumstances such an action
type is needed? 

I would be glad to receive any comments on this issue. 

Regards, 

Jean-Bertos 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.

---

From: Thomas Nadeau <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2001 10:49:05 -0500

At 10:40 AM 11/7/2001 -0500, Jean-Bertos Simo wrote:
>Thanks Tom.
>
>I would like a minor correction to be done in the examples in the FTN MIB. 
>I think mplsFTNMask should be set to 0x02 instead of 0x40 for destination 
>address only.

         Good catch. We will fix this.

         --tom

>>In case the answer is 2), what are the type of circumstances such an 
>>action type is needed?
>>