RE: [PWE3] status signalling of MPLS PW state

["Himanshu Shah" <hshah@wavesmithnetworks.com>]

Also, note that draft-shah is backward compatible
where capability of the remote peer is auto-learned
based on presence/absence of operational status TLV
in the initial label mapping message.

/himanshu
wavesmith networks

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Himanshu Shah 
> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 11:13 AM
> To: Luca Martini; Andrew G. Malis
> Cc: Hamid Ould-Brahim; pwe3@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [PWE3] status signalling of MPLS PW state
> 
> 
> I will furnish the text for use of each TLV.
> 
> Note that not all TLVs are suitable for "update"
> mechanism. For example, QOS TLV.  It is best
> that these parameters are provided at the time
> XC is programmed in the FIB and not after.
> 
> We need a +generic+ mechanism to allow
> extensions without requesting changes in the base draft.
> 
> Also, I am not convinced if it is necessary to convey the
> the reasons for "link down" to remote PE. I don't
> believe it is useful information as such. 
> 
> The problem is, for instance, if the link and/or PW is down,
> and notified, but the reasons have changed, should PE keep
> notifying the change of these reasons?
> 
> /himanshu
> wavesmith networks
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Luca Martini [mailto:luca@level3.net]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 7:03 PM
> > To: Andrew G. Malis
> > Cc: Hamid Ould-Brahim; pwe3@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [PWE3] status signalling of MPLS PW state
> > 
> > 
> > I read the following TLVs in the 
> > draft-shah-pwe3-control-protocol-extension-00.txt :
> > 
> > Operational Status TLV
> > IP Address TLV
> > IP+MAC Address TLV
> > Pseudowire QOS TLV
> > 
> > 
> > I think most of these are needed , but they need not all be 
> > part of the FEC.
> > There are several bits available in the status TLV proposal, 
> > can you please 
> > specify what the use should be, and I can add it.
> > ( please note that the draft-shah does not propose much in 
> > the area of status )
> > 
> > Thanks.
> > Luca
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Andrew G. Malis wrote:
> > > Hamid,
> > > 
> > > Well, they're really two alternative ways to extend LDP to 
> > convey the 
> > > same information.  The only way to really merge them would 
> > be to support 
> > > them both ....
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > Andy
> > > 
> > > ---------
> > > 
> > > At 6/11/2003 04:48 PM -0400, Hamid Ould-Brahim wrote:
> > > 
> > >> Andy,
> > >>
> > >> [clipped]...
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> > I certainly agree that one or the other is needed,
> > >>
> > >> How about both proposals to be merged (when possible/applicable)?
> > >>
> > >> Hamid.
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > pwe3 mailing list
> > pwe3@ietf.org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
> > 
> _______________________________________________
> pwe3 mailing list
> pwe3@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
> 
_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3