The MPLS WG Archive[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index] [mpls] Liaison from MPLS & Frame Relay Alliance on RFC3036 Proposed Revisions
Eric, We recently completed work on the spec, and implementations are in progress. So it's a timing thing mostly. If the question is asked again in a few months, there will be implementations to report on. It's not a paper dependency - the spec uses the Host Address FEC as currently specified. Cheers, Andy ----------- At 10/8/2004 01:29 AM -0400, Eric Gray wrote: >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
|
|