[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PWE3] [mpls-tp] 2nd wg last call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-gach-gal
- To: "Loa Andersson" <loa at pi.nu>, <mpls-tp at ietf.org>, <mpls at ietf.org>, <ccamp at ops.ietf.org>, <pwe3 at ietf.org>, "ITU-T ad hoc team on MPLS-TP" <ahmpls-tp at lists.itu.int>, "George Swallow" <swallow at cisco.com>, "Ross Callon" <rcallon at juniper.net>, "David Ward" <dward at cisco.com>, "Malcolm Betts" <betts01 at nortel.com>, "VIGOUREUX MARTIN" <Martin.Vigoureux at alcatel-lucent.com>
- Subject: Re: [PWE3] [mpls-tp] 2nd wg last call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-gach-gal
- From: "David Allan" <dallan at nortel.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 13:34:07 -0500
- Delivered-to: pwe3 at core3.amsl.com
- In-reply-to: <49A3CAFD.9060806 at pi.nu>
- List-archive: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/pwe3>
- List-help: <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
- List-id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge <pwe3.ietf.org>
- List-post: <mailto:pwe3@ietf.org>
- List-subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3>, <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3>, <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <49A3CAFD.9060806 at pi.nu>
- Thread-index: AcmWn8Efk5GurTo4ShOXgqKXjG6w5gAA52mw
- Thread-topic: [mpls-tp] 2nd wg last call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-gach-gal
Well I'll make the same comment again....
In section 4.3 it states...
o Unlike the mechanisms described and referenced in RFC 3429 [18],
MPLS-TP maintenance messages will not reside immediately after the
GAL but instead behind the ACH, which itself resides after the
bottom of the label stack. This ensures that OAM, using the
G-ACh, complies with RFC 4928 [11].
While RFC 4928 says
It must also be noted that LSRs that correctly identify a payload as
not being IP most often will load-share traffic across multiple
equal-cost paths based on the label stack. Any reserved label, no
matter where it is located in the stack, may be included in the
computation for load balancing. Modification of the label stack
between packets of a single flow could result in re-ordering that
flow. That is, were an explicit null or a router-alert label to be
added to a packet, that packet could take a different path through
the network.
So the mere presence of the GAL will violate RFC 4928....the presence of
the GACH cannot fix this...and claiming the GACH does provide compliance
is misleading....the paragraph in section 4.3 should be deleted...
Cheers
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: mpls-tp-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:mpls-tp-bounces at ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Loa Andersson
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 5:25 AM
To: mpls-tp at ietf.org; mpls at ietf.org; ccamp at ops.ietf.org; pwe3 at ietf.org;
ITU-T ad hoc team on MPLS-TP; George Swallow; Ross Callon; David Ward;
Betts, Malcolm (CAR:X632); VIGOUREUX MARTIN
Subject: [mpls-tp] 2nd wg last call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-gach-gal
All,
an updated version (-02) of the draft-ietf-mpls-tp-gach-gal has been
published.
The draft is found at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-gach-gal-02
Since the updates are significant this is to initiate a 2 week working
group last call on the new version.
Please send your comments to the mpls-tp at ietf.org mailing list.
The working group last call will end on March 11.
/Loa
--
Loa Andersson
Sr Strategy and Standards Manager
Ericsson /// phone: +46 8 632 77 14
email:
loa.andersson at ericsson.com
loa.andersson at redback.com
loa at pi.nu
_______________________________________________
mpls-tp mailing list
mpls-tp at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp