The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2000-Jul> msg00334



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]  
  [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index]

Consensus on compression - draft-ietf-mpls-hdr-comp-00.txt

  • From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
  • Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 14:45:33 -0400
  • Cc: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, Eric Gray <EGray@zaffire.com>, "MPLS Mailing List (E-mail)" <mpls@UU.NET>, "'George Swallow'" <swallow@cisco.com>

I have 0 issue with narrowing the scope.  I suggest some alternate wording 
below.

Lou

At 02:10 PM 7/21/00 -0400, Eric Rosen wrote:

>Lou> The case I was thinking about is were there is an inner label that
>Lou> indicates VPN and an outer label that indicates an egress.
>
>What makes this  case problematic is that pushing on  these two labels would
>be a  function of the Provider Edge  router, which is much  less likely than
>the CPE to be separated by a low speed link from the backbone.
>
>If you  want your  draft to be  considered for  standards track, I  think it
>should have  a much clearer statement  of its purpose,  maybe even something
>like "not recommended for use on links faster than 9.6Kb", or something like
>that.

How about "recommended for use on links where IP Header Compression 
[RFC2507, 2508] is, or can be used."

>And  a clear  statement that its  use is  optional.

100% agreed.  Again, just like IP Header Compression.

>That way  when a
>potential  customer complains that  an implementation  is not  conformant to
>standards  because it  doesn't use  single  hop compression  on its  gigabit
>ethernet link, one can just refer the customer back to the document itself.