The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2006-Aug> msg00011



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

[mpls] Comments on draft-swallow-mpls-mcast-cv-00

  • From: <benjamin.niven-jenkins@bt.com>
  • Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 14:57:16 +0100
  • Cc: mpls@ietf.org
  • Thread-Index: Aca36upT1wGnbbnSR2OK2eBIAXhxJQEmY/lg
  • Thread-Topic: [mpls] Comments on draft-swallow-mpls-mcast-cv-00
  • X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by cell.onecall.net id k7ADuMH30561
  • X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Aug 2006 13:57:18.0324 (UTC)FILETIME=[E493E340:01C6BC84]

Tom,

Thanks.

I notice that draft-swallow-mpls-mcast-cv-00 is not available from the
internet-drafts repository.

One response inline (I've snipped the rest).

Thanks
Ben

Thomas D. Nadeau <mailto:tnadeau@cisco.com> wrote:
>> 3) Section 3.2 states
>> 
>> "The Refresh Interval is set to a relatively long value.  The root
>> MUST refresh the session within this interval.  The root MAY jitter
>> refresh messages but the Refresh Interval serves as a hard upper
>> bound on the jittering.  MPLS Echo Requests which refresh the CV
>> Session SHOULD be sent on average at approximately one third of the
>> Refresh Interval." 
>> 
>> However Section 3.1 defines the Refresh Interval as "the minimum
>> period before a refresh message is sent in milliseconds."
>> 
>> There seems to a conflict in the two defintions, where Section 3.1
>> states it is a mininum period and Section 3.2 states that it is a
>> upper bound.  Which is it?
> 
> TDN: The refresh interval for the bootstrapping messages is
> 	supposed to be relatively long -- on the order of
> 	multiple seconds or minutes.

So the definition in section 3.2 is the correct one and the definition
in section 3.1 needs changing?

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