The MPLS WG Archive

["Andrew G. Malis" <andymalis@comcast.net>]

Eric,

>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.

In Ina's first draft, the Prefix Address FEC was GOING TO change as a 
result of elimination of the Host Address FEC.  Re-read her original draft 
and you'll see it in the list of proposed changes to RFC 3036.  Both of 
those changes were backed out of the current draft.

>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.

The document is publicly available at
http://www.mplsforum.org/tech/mpls-proxy-admission-control-protocol-ia.pdf
  .  It could be copied into an internet draft, but that's just makework, 
since you can read the document right now with one click.

>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?

Again, that's just unnecessary makework, plus makework to remove the FEC in 
the first place.  Why are you so opposed to leaving it in place?

Cheers,
Andy


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