Re: [PWE3] 答复: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4385 (1743)

[Yaakov Stein <yaakov_s at rad.com>]

No, the encapsulation drafts are quite specific about this.

It is not a matter for configuration.

 

After talking with Stewart I think we have agreed that a new spin of 4385

should distinguish between encaps for which the SN is optional

(e.g. ATM, FR, Ethernet) and those for which the SN is mandatory (e.g. SAToP, CESoPSN, TDMoIP, CEP).

The former camp uses the zero value to indicate that the SN is not being used and thus skips it when the SN is used,

the latter never skip the zero value.

 

Y(J)S

 

From: pwe3-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of jiang.xiaowei at zte.com.cn
Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2009 07:42
To: Yaakov Stein
Cc: pwe3 at ietf.org
Subject: [PWE3] 答复: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4385 (1743)

 

Sir,

For the seq# space gap problem, could just make the seq# 0 be configurable for specific implementation so that vendors can interop with each other?

Thank you.