The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2007-Jul> msg00397



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

[mpls] draft-ali-mpls-rsvp-te-s2l-name-01.txt

  • From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
  • Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 13:46:20 +0100
  • Cc: mpls@lists.ietf.org

Hi,

I don't see why you have defined a Flags field in this object when you have 
not isolated any requirements for the flags.

If you want the object to be truly extensible, as you suggest, then you 
should use TLVs. Without that, you are not future-proof.

Your draft should address scalability concerns for the signaling protocol 
when per-leaf text strings (each of which can be up to 255 bytes long : plus 
one byte of padding).

I remain completely unconvinced by the requirements expressed in your draft. 
Are you trying to identify control plane state or data plane state? Surely 
the P2MP LSP is identified by name, and the branch is identified by name and 
the set of leaves reached through that branch. Maybe you need to give an 
example of usage by a management application.

Cheers,
Adrian 




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