The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2006-Apr> msg00029



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

[mpls] New Liaison Statement, "T-MPLS Consented Recommendatio ns"

  • From: Scott W Brim <swb@employees.org>
  • Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 11:43:08 -0400
  • Cc: mpls@lists.ietf.org, "'Thomas D. Nadeau'" <tnadeau@cisco.com>
  • User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;rv:1.8) Gecko/20051201 Thunderbird/1.5 Mnenhy/0.7.3.0
  • X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0
  • X-IronPort-AV: i="4.04,112,1144036800"; d="scan'208"; a="86200876:sNHT30126056"
  • X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Apr 2006 15:43:09.0223 (UTC)FILETIME=[A2066B70:01C65D7E]

On 04/11/2006 11:07 AM, Shahram Davari allegedly wrote:
> Hi Scott,
> 
> The tabel in G.8112 diesn't show any restriction on label range. It
> is in-line with RFC-3032. It just repeats which of the 32 reserved
> labels are already in use, and which are for FFS. It also mentions
> that all the remaining 2^20-32 labels could be used for T-MPLS. What
> restriction do you see in that?
> 
> -Shahram

In 3032, labels 0-3 have special use and 4-15 are reserved.  G.8112
(table 6-7) extends this by saying: "16-31 For further study".  Existing
implementations use these labels by default -- some cannot be configured
not to.

Cisco put in a comment suggesting this be modified to "16-31  For
further study in consultation with the IETF".  The editor responded
suggesting "16-31 Not used in T-MPLS" and a note: "Labels 16-31 are, by
convention, not used in T-MPLS. If used in the future, they will be used
in the context of label pop, push or swap as defined in RFC3031 and
RFC3032."  I have trouble seeing the difference.

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