The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2006-Jul> msg00015



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

[mpls] Re: draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-p2mp-06.txt [P2MP ID]

  • From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
  • Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 11:09:44 -0400
  • Cc: p2mp@labn.net, mpls@ietf.org, ccamp@ops.ietf.org
  • X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse,please include it with any abuse report
  • X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - esc71.midphase.com
  • X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
  • X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
  • X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - labn.net

At 10:39 AM 7/5/2006, Yakov Rekhter wrote:
>Could you please provide *technical* reason(s) that would explain why
>a combination of P2MP ID and Extended Tunnel ID is not sufficient ?
>
>Yakov.

Yakov,
         Simply, because that's the way MPLS and GMPLS is specified 
today and works in running code.

If you want to change something from the way it works today, i.e, in 
RFC3209 and 3473 (and really 2205), IMO it's incumbent on you to 
justify why what's there needs to be changed.  The case has been made 
for why the session object must use a P2MP ID rather than a 
destination IP address.  The case has not been made for changing the 
definition or semantics of Tunnel ID.

Can provide the justification of why we need to deviate from current 
specs on definition of Tunnel ID?

Lou 


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