Re: [PWE3] 答复: 答复: flow label format in draft-ietf-fat-pw-02

[Stewart Bryant <stbryant at cisco.com>]

Lucy

Thanks for the email.
>
> Hi Stewart,
>
> Thank you for the explanation. It is much clear. The reason to use
> ingress PE and egress PE for this section is that signaling procedures
> in RFC4447 describes with ingress PE and egress PE. In general, egress
> PE initiates label mapping message. In your draft, ingress PE sends
> label mapping message with FL Sub-TLV first. RFC4447 state 2 or 1 way
> signaling procedure, my impression that your draft states three-way
> procedures.
>
OK - I will fix the naming of the PEs.
>
> The draft states flow label very briefly. Since Flow Label never
> becomes the top label in label stack, value in the field besides the
> label field can be any. Is that right?
>
Any value except a reserved label (feedback from MPLS chairs and stated
in the draft). That is a bit annoying in that it makes it more difficult
to compute the random number, but all sorts of bad things can happen if
it gets interpreted as a reserved label.

- Stewart