[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-p2mp-06.txt [P2MP ID]
At 03:18 PM 7/5/2006, Yakov Rekhter wrote:
> At 10:39 AM 7/5/2006, Yakov Rekhter wrote:
> >Could you please provide *technical* reason(s) that would explain why
> >a combination of P2MP ID and Extended Tunnel ID is not sufficient ?
> Simply, because that's the way MPLS and GMPLS is specified
> today and works in running code.
> If you want to change something from the way it works today, i.e, in
> RFC3209 and 3473 (and really 2205), IMO it's incumbent on you to
> justify why what's there needs to be changed. The case has been made
> for why the session object must use a P2MP ID rather than a
> destination IP address. The case has not been made for changing the
> definition or semantics of Tunnel ID.
> Can provide the justification of why we need to deviate from current
> specs on definition of Tunnel ID?
Are you saying that the only reason we have to use Tunnel ID as
part of a p2mp tunnel identifier is because Tunnel ID is used as
part of a p2p tunnel identifier ?
I didn't say that. What I said is the same thing that George said:
That the onus is on you to state why we should deviate from current
spec and practice.
If you care to, can you articulate any reason to justify this
change? If not, we should leave the definition unchanged and move on.