The MPLS WG Archive

[Shahram Davari <Shahram_Davari@pmc-sierra.com>]

Ok, now I go it. I think this should be corrected, specially when there is no use for it. 

-Shahram

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott W Brim [mailto:swb@employees.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 11:43 AM
> To: Shahram Davari
> Cc: mpls@lists.ietf.org; 'Thomas D. Nadeau'
> Subject: Re: [mpls] New Liaison Statement, "T-MPLS Consented
> Recommendatio ns"
> 
> 
> 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
> 

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