The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2006-Jul> msg00016



[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: George Swallow <swallow@cisco.com>
  • Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 12:08:40 -0400
  • Cc: mpls@ietf.org, ccamp@ops.ietf.org, p2mp@labn.net
  • X-IronPort-AV: i="4.06,210,1149480000"; d="scan'208"; a="91699793:sNHT31509740"
  • X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Jul 2006 16:07:35.0034 (UTC)FILETIME=[20D42DA0:01C6A04D]

>          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?

Absolutely.  We didn't start with a blank piece of paper.  We're
building on existing things.  So the onus for argument, should you
choose to pursue it, is in your court.

...George

========================================================================
George Swallow             Cisco Systems                  (978) 936-1398
                           1414 Massachusetts Avenue
                           Boxborough, MA 01719

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