The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2001-Feb> msg00398



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

New TTL Draft

  • From: Shahram Davari <Shahram_Davari@pmc-sierra.com>
  • Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 08:41:04 -0800
  • Cc: "'Puneet Agarwal'" <puneet@pluris.com>, "'mpls@uu.net'" <mpls@UU.NET>, "'flefauch@cisco.com'" <flefauch@cisco.com>, "'liwwu@cisco.com'" <liwwu@cisco.com>, "'bsd@cisco.com'" <bsd@cisco.com>, Bora Akyol <akyol@pluris.com>

Hi Eric,


>     I see no reason why Puneet's draft should affect TTL processing
> in intermediate LSRs.  I believe this is well defined elsewhere.

Sure, but first the authors should decide what is the objective of this draft? Is it explaining the TTL processing after pop or push, in other words is it explaining the TTL processing at tunnel ingress/egress/penultimate? or is it a general TTL processing draft that explains TTL processing at any node be it intermediate or tunnel ingress/egress/penultimate?

It seems that the authors intend to talk only about tunnel ingress/egress/penultimate TTL processing. If that is the case then the draft is misleading because neither the title nor the text reflect this. Also section 2.3 second paragraph talks about iTTL determination for push/"SWAP"/php. Which means it is talking about iTTL determination for a "SWAP" case too, which is intermediate TTL processing. 

>     By the way, an LSR that pops a label is not an intermediate LSR
> with respect to the LSP for which that label applied.
>

Yes, I guess I know that.

Thanks,
-Shahram