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

Re: [PWE3] I-D ACTION:draft-delord-pwe3-cw-bit-etree-00.txt

Hi Stewart,

Thanks a lot for your comment.

Basically, we do not think the TLV negociation is required here, as RFC 4448 section 4.6 addresses that (basically a PE that does not support/understand the L bit will simply ignore it).

We have just submittted another draft to L2VPN WG, Extension to VPLS for E-Tree,

draft-key-l2vpn-vpls-etree-00.txt (http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-key-l2vpn-vpls-etree-00.txt), section 5 - backward compatibility goes through the different scenarios.

Please let us know your thoughts,

Regards,

Simon

2009/10/9 Stewart Bryant <stbryant at cisco.com>
Internet-Drafts at ietf.org wrote:
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.


       Title           : Control Word Reserved bit for use in E-Tree
       Author(s)       : S. DeLord, R. Key, F. JOUNAY, W. Henderickx, L. Yong
       Filename        : draft-delord-pwe3-cw-bit-etree-00.txt
       Pages           : 8
       Date            : 2009-10-7
       
 

I cannot see how you are signaling the presence of the c parameter at PW
startup. I assume that you had in mind to do this with an interface parameter,
and if so you need to define the signaling for that and to request it in the
IANA section.

I think basically you need the same text that is used in fat-pw to negotiate
the presence of the fat label.

- Stewart


_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3 at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3