The MPLS WG Archive[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index] Mismatch in Routing extension and OSPF extension
Hi,
There looks a mismatch between
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-routing-06.txt and
draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-09.txt.
There is no indication field information in the interface
switching capability descriptor for PSC. But section 3.4.2 of
Routing extension
talks about the standard SDH encoding and Aribitrary SDH encoding
for PSC. The fields available in TLV 15 for PSC
are Switching cap, Encoding, Max LSP bandwidth at priority,
minimum LSP bandwidth, Interface MTU. Encoding types defined in
"Generalized MPLS - signaling functional description " includes
only one encoding type for SDH.(5 - SDH ITU-T G.707 / SONET ANSI
T1.105). So no way we will be able to get the info for PSC from 15
TLV.
But we have an indication field in TLV 15 for TDM to specify
whether the interface supports Standard or Arbitrary SDH.
There is a mismatch between section 3.4 of OSPF extension and
3.4.2 of Routing Extension.
Regards,
Anu
============================================
Routing Extension
3.4.2. Packet-Switch Capable
On a PSC interface that supports Standard SDH encoding, an LSP
at
priority p could reserve any bandwidth allowed by the branch
of the
SDH hierarchy, with the leaf and the root of the branch being
defined
by the Minimum LSP Bandwidth and the Maximum LSP Bandwidth
at
priority p.
On a PSC interface that supports Arbitrary SDH encoding, an
LSP at
priority p could reserve any bandwidth between the Minimum
LSP
Bandwidth and the Maximum LSP Bandwidth at priority p,
provided that
the bandwidth reserved by the LSP is a multiple of the Minimum
LSP
Bandwidth.
___________________________________________________
Meet your old school or college friends from
1 Million + database...
Click here to reunite www.batchmates.com/rediff.asp
|
|