The MPLS WG Archive

[Eric Gray <ewgray@GraIyMage.com>]

Andy,

    This liaison makes it seem as if there are implementations out in 
the world
that depend on the use of the Host Address FEC. Do you know if that is the
case?  If so, where were the vendors that implement it when the question was
asked earlier?

    Or is this a case of a "paper-dependency" where the real 
implementations
actually use the 32 bit prefix FEC?

--
Eric

Andrew G. Malis wrote:

> This email was originally sent by a non-list member and is being held up
> pending approval.  To get it out quickly to the list, I'm resending it on
> behalf of Rao Cherukuri, rcheruku@cisco.com.
>
> Dear George, Loa, and Ina:
>
> A recent message on the MPLS WG mailing list
> (http://www.cell-relay.com/mhonarc/mpls/2004-Sep/msg00043.html) has
> suggested changes to RFC 3036 ("LDP Specification") and called for 
> comments
> on the proposed changes.  One of the proposed changes is to deprecate the
> use of the Host Address FEC TLV.  Two Implementation Agreements 
> published by
> the MPLS & Frame Relay Alliance (MFA), "MPLS Proxy Admission Control
> Definition" and "MPLS Proxy Admission Control Protocol", MFA.6.0.0 and 
> MFA.7.0.0
> (http://www.mplsforum.org/tech/mpls-proxy-admission-control-definition-ia.pdf 
> and
> http://www.mplsforum.org/tech/mpls-proxy-admission-control-protocol-ia.pdf) 
>
> make use of the Host Address FEC TLV.  MPLS Proxy Admission Control 
> provides
> a bandwidth-based reservation/admission facility for MPLS networks.  
> There
> are implementations of this protocol in progress.
>
> While the proposed changes make a Prefix FEC TLV with a 32-bit mask
> equivalent to a Host Address FEC TLV, adopting the Prefix FEC TLV would
> require changes to approved and published MFA documents, and changes 
> to the
> implementations.  Also, since MPLS Proxy Admission Control only uses host
> addresses, using the Prefix FEC TLV would necessitate an additional check
> that the prefix was always 32 bits.  Therefore, the MFA kindly 
> requests that
> the Host Address FEC TLV not be deprecated, and that it continues to be
> supported in future revisions of LDP.
>
> In RFC 3036, there is a semantic difference between a Host Address and a
> prefix with length 32.  The new version proposes to remove the semantic
> difference.  This is not a problem for the MPLS Proxy Admission 
> Control; we
> are just requesting that the Host Address codepoint not be deprecated.
>
> Please advise us as soon as possible about the decision on this issue.
>
> Cordially,
> Rao Cherukuri
> MPLS & Frame Relay Alliance
> Technical Committee Chair
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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