The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2004-Aug> msg00029



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

[mpls] Requesting your feedback - issues/errors/clarifications

  • From: Eric Rosen <erosen@cisco.com>
  • Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 11:00:17 -0400
  • Cc: mpls@ietf.org
  • User-Agent: EMH/1.14.1 SEMI/1.14.3 (Ushinoya) FLIM/1.14.3(Unebigoryōmae) APEL/10.3 Emacs/21.3(sparc-sun-solaris2.8) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI)


> I agree we should get rid of the host FEC type. 

I also agree that we should get rid of the host FEC type. 

> Issue: do we really have to send all FECs in our database whenever we
> have an LDP session between two peers? 

This should not be a requirement of the protocol spec, the application which
is using the protocol should determine which FECS get sent. 

> Issue: with all the combinations of Downstream Unsolicited, Downstream
> on Demand, Ordered Control, Independent Control, etc., it makes sense to
> define a mandatory combination.  DU/OC seems to be the favored one. 

I believe  this would  put a majority  of the  deployed LDP speakers  out of
spec.  Such a change cannot be made as part of going to DS.


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