The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2006-Aug> msg00012



[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: "Thomas D. Nadeau" <tnadeau@cisco.com>
  • Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 10:41:05 -0400
  • Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-8.cisco.com; header.From=tnadeau@cisco.com;dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com verified; );
  • Cc: mpls@ietf.org
  • DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; l=1563; t=1155220875; x=1156084875;c=relaxed/relaxed; s=sjdkim8002;h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version;d=cisco.com; i=tnadeau@cisco.com;z=From:=22Thomas=20D.=20Nadeau=22=20<tnadeau@cisco.com>|Subject:Re=3A=20[mpls]=20Comments=20on=20draft-swallow-mpls-mcast-cv-00;X=v=3Dcisco.com=3B=20h=3DjV4kd8cdRscTMxZNaySS1DzbfC0=3D;b=GaG8ynwnPo5uVTBjwphPWdVm7dgRtRvudkaHxwh413hALwRj+o6XlRWmi0WS4hKXqrEW0VjkZQWWscd/Q/BG5WIga/Pb5cQl1ZZ/WIShpHAeW1YuvN+teJDPf6VACLU/;
  • X-IronPort-AV: i="4.08,111,1154934000"; d="scan'208"; a="310940793:sNHT29346422"
  • X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Aug 2006 14:41:03.0938 (UTC)FILETIME=[0190CA20:01C6BC8B]


On Aug 10, 2006, at 9:57 AM, <benjamin.niven-jenkins@bt.com> wrote:

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

	Yes. George mentioned during his presentation that
he misspelled the email address for internet-drafts@ietf.org,
but that he was going to push it out post the meeting.
Let me check with him today.

> 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?

	Yes, 3.2 is correct.

	--Tom



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