Re: Label Set Object/Tlv

["Venkat Dabbara" <venkat.dabb@wipro.com>]

comments inline.........

----- Original Message -----
From: <Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be>
To: "venkat" <venkat.dabb@wipro.com>
Cc: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 8:56 PM
Subject: Re: Label Set Object/Tlv


> hi see in-line
>
> > Venkat Dabbara wrote:
> >
> >
> > hai ,
> >
> >             In draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-cr-ldp-06.txt
> >       2.5.1. Procedures
> >                 A Label Set is defined via one or more Label Set TLVs.
> > Specific
> >                labels/subchannels can be added to or excluded from a
> > Label
> > Set via
> >                Action zero (0) and one (1) TLVs respectively.  Ranges
> > of
> >                labels/subchannels can be added to or excluded from a
> > Label
> > Set via
> >                Action two (2) and three (3) TLVs respectively.
> >
> >     The first line of the sec 2.5.1 says a label set is defined via
> > one or
> > more LabelSet TLVs. My interpretation
> >     about this is that a label request can have multiple Label Set
> > TLVs in
> > it with different action types corresponding
> >      to each label set TLV. Am i right ??
>
> i think so
>
> >      If  i am wrong please do clarify ...
> >
> >      If yes, then assume i get a request with one label set TLV with
> > action
> > type 0 which has a list of labels
> >     and other Label set TLV with action type 1 which has a range of
> > Labels.
> > Now in this case i go about
> >     picking up a label from the second label set TLV only if i am not
> > able
> > to pick up a label from the first
> >     label set TLV....Is that true ??
>
> i think the operation is
> label set := label set tlv[1] AND label set tlv[2] AND ... label set
> tlv[n]
> and not, if not label set tlv[1] then label set tlv[2] etc. think
> because
> the action refer to the whole label set as indicated in gmpls-sig

Sir, as per my understanding action type refers to individual label set TLV
in a
label set. Your argument is confusing. Suppose i go with ur argument and
when i have two disjoint label set TLV as a part of label set, then my valid
label set
becomes all the labels in the first label set TLV plus all the labels in the
label set TLV.
This is what u meant ??
N consider the same situation now with two intersecting label set TLVs as a
part of label set.
As per ur argument, now the valid label set will be the intersection of the
two or the bigger label
set TLV ??
Infact i would consider this situation to be misleading one. Some thing
similar to the situations
u have listed below.

Please do clarify .

thanks
venkat

>
> >     Now situation may get even worse when i have a Label set TLV with
> > action
> > type to include a label
> >     set and other Label Set TLV with action type exclude. I knoe such
> > situations are not practical but
> >     sure needs to be handled someway.
>
> when conditions such as
> - include label x AND exclude label x
> - include label x AND exclude label range [k,..,z]
> - include label range [t,..,y] AND exclude label range [k,..,z]
>
> thus when the exclude set is larger and include the include
> set, an error should be generated.
>
> - dimitri.
>
> >     Please do clarify
> >
> > venkat
> >
> > PS: Please don't bother about the disclaimer which come attached with
> > this
> > mail.
>
> --
> Papadimitriou Dimitri
> E-mail : dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be
> Website: http://www.rc.bel.alcatel.be/~papadimd/index.html
> Address: Alcatel - Optical NA, Fr. Wellesplein, 1
>          B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium
> Phone:   Work: +32 3 2408491 - Home: +32 2 3434361