[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Path TLV



Gino,

The draft points out the issues but the presentation in Minneapolis already
contained some possible suggestions to resolve some of them. These will be
documented in the next version of the draft.

Sven.





"Gino Carrozzo" <g.carrozzo@cpr.it> on 03/05/2002 10:30:02
                                                              
                                                              
                                                              
  To:          "Zafar Ali" <zali@cisco.com>                   
                                                              
  cc:          kireeti@juniper.net, "ccamp"                   
               <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>, eric.mannie@gts.com,     
               Sven VAN DEN BOSCH/BE/ALCATEL@ALCATEL          
                                                              
                                                              
                                                              
  Subject      Re: Path TLV                                   
  :                                                           
                                                              





Dear Zafar,

if I'm not wrong, draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-02.txt  is going to
be ready for IETF Last Call,
but some points seems to be without a full consensus yet.

Anyway,  is there any action in IETF now to solve "preliminary" FA-LSPs
issues (e.g. Pah TLV, FA color/metric assignment)? IMO,
draft-vandenbosch-mpls-fa-considerations-00.txt just points out these
issues!

Thanks

Gino
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Zafar Ali
  To: Gino Carrozzo ; eric.mannie@gts.com
  Cc: kireeti@juniper.net ; ccamp
  Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 9:21 PM
  Subject: Re: Path TLV


  At 04:22 PM 5/2/2002 +0200, Gino Carrozzo wrote:

    Hi all,

    in  draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-02.txt (Sec. 10.1) an OSPF/ISIS
    Path TLV is proposed to handle the info about the path taken by an
FA-LSP
    associated with a TE-Link (FA).

    But the new versions of the GMPLS routing and hierarchy drafts
    (i.e. lsp-hierarchy-05.txt / ospf-gmpls-extensions-06.txt /
    isis-gmpls-extensions-10.txt)
    does not describe this TLV.

    Is this an editorial bug for the architecture-02 draft?

  Dear Gino,

  No; you may like to refer to the following draft for some "preliminary "
details on this subject.


http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-vandenbosch-mpls-fa-considerations-00.txt


  Thanks

  Regards... Zafar



    Thanks
    Gino
(See attached file: att1.htm)

Dear Zafar,
 
if I'm not wrong, draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-02.txt  is going to be ready for IETF Last Call,
but some points seems to be without a full consensus yet.
 
Anyway,  is there any action in IETF now to solve "preliminary" FA-LSPs issues (e.g. Pah TLV, FA color/metric assignment)? IMO, draft-vandenbosch-mpls-fa-considerations-00.txt just points out these issues!
 
Thanks
 
Gino 
----- Original Message -----
From: Zafar Ali
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 9:21 PM
Subject: Re: Path TLV

At 04:22 PM 5/2/2002 +0200, Gino Carrozzo wrote:
Hi all,

in  draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-02.txt (Sec. 10.1) an OSPF/ISIS
Path TLV is proposed to handle the info about the path taken by an FA-LSP
associated with a TE-Link (FA).

But the new versions of the GMPLS routing and hierarchy drafts
(i.e. lsp-hierarchy-05.txt / ospf-gmpls-extensions-06.txt /
isis-gmpls-extensions-10.txt)
does not describe this TLV.

Is this an editorial bug for the architecture-02 draft?

Dear Gino,

No; you may like to refer to the following draft for some "preliminary " details on this subject.

http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-vandenbosch-mpls-fa-considerations-00.txt

Thanks

Regards... Zafar


Thanks
Gino