The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2000-Jun> msg00350



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

Last Call for LDP

  • From: "Andrew G. Malis" <amalis@lucent.com>
  • Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 12:09:54 -0400
  • Cc: "'Joan Cucchiara'" <JCucchiara@Brixnet.com>, "'MPLS Mailing list'" <mpls@UU.NET>, "'Bob Thomas'" <rhthomas@cisco.com>

Eric,

This has been corrected in draft-ietf-mpls-fr-05.txt (which now only 
supports 10- and 23-bit DLCIs).

Cheers,
Andy

--------

At 6/8/00 01:51 PM -0700, Eric Gray wrote:
>Joan,
>
>         I had heard the same from Andy Malis.
>That's why I was a little surprised to discover
>that this same issue exists in the latest draft
>for MPLS over Frame Relay.
>
>         I think that LDP needs to be consistent
>with the Frame Relay MPLS draft.  I'm not sure
>which should be fixed...
>
>--
>Eric Gray
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Cucchiara, Joan [mailto:JCucchiara@Brixnet.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2000 12:29 PM
> > To: 'rhthomas@cisco.com'
> > Cc: 'mpls@uu.net'
> > Subject: RE: Last Call for LDP
> >
> >
> >
> > Bob,
> >
> > My understanding is that the Frame Relay Forum has
> > dropped support for 17-bit DLCIs.  The LDP MIB and
> > LSR MIB (drafts) are not supporting 17-bit FrameRelay
> > labels.
> >
> > I would like to request that references to 17-bit DLCI
> > Frame Relay labels be removed from the LDP Specification.
> > Admittedly, this was not an issue during the prior last
> > call because the 17-bit FR DLCIs were still being supported
> > by the FRF during that time.
> >
> > This change would more closely align the LDP spec with the
> > LDP MIB and LSR MIB.