The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2004-Oct> msg00090



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

[mpls] Host Address FEC

  • From: Eric Rosen <erosen@cisco.com>
  • Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 11:13:53 -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)


Tom> The proposed  semantic change  was to the  Prefix Address FEC  (not the
Tom> Host  Address FEC)  - to  make a  Prefix Address  with a  32-bit prefix
Tom> equivalent  to a  Host  Address FEC.   This  change, to  make a  Prefix
Tom> Address FEC able to substitute for  a Host Address FEC has no effect on
Tom> our protocol 

Tom, this is not a  correct understanding.  Eliminating the Host Address FEC
does not have  any effect whatsoever on the semantics  of the Prefix Address
FEC. 

Tom> The MPLS Forum protocol needs to have the Host Address FEC as it is in RFC
Tom> 3036, and uses it in the spirit of its meaning there.  

So you say, but  it doesn't seem that way to me.   Maybe you should write an
Internet Draft explaining how you intend to use it. 

Suppose the  Host Address  FEC is removed  from RFC  3036, and you  write an
Internet  Draft proposing that  the codepoint  be reused  for an  MPLS Forum
protocol. Can you explain why that doesn't meet your needs? 




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