The MPLS WG Archive

[Luca Martini <lmartini@cisco.com>]

Ina,

The following text needs more explanation:
RFC3036:

  F bit
     Forward unknown TLV bit.  This bit applies only when the U bit is
     set and the LDP message containing the unknown TLV is to be
     forwarded.  If F is clear (=0), the unknown TLV is not forwarded
     with the containing message; if F is set (=1), the unknown TLV is
     forwarded with the containing message.  The sections following
     that define TLVs specify a value for the F-bit.

-----------------------------
If  the U Bit and the F bit are set , then the extra TLV can be forwarded.

I believe that somewhere we need to explain that this was intended to 
allow attachment of attributes to a FEC.
I believe that this is used by the LDP MTU draft already, but we need 
some text to specify the F-bit better.

Luca





Luca

Ina Minei wrote:

>	RFC3036 (LDP specification) is advancing to draft standard.
>
>	As part of this process, it is necessary to compile a list of
>changes/clarifications to the rfc, based on the experience gained with the
>protocol.
>
>	Please send me errors/changes/clarifications that you know about,
>so that they can be taken into account in the revised document. Please
>send your comments by September 6, either directly to me or to the list.
>
>	I will post the complete list of the issues a couple of weeks
>later.
>
>		Thank you,
>
>			Ina
>
>_______________________________________________
>mpls mailing list
>mpls@lists.ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>
>  
>

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls