And, how can the encapsulation be anything other than EthernetPW? Tony
On Jul 9, 2010, at 12:38 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Yaakov, > > when you say encapsulation what is the intention e.g. at the interface? > > Mike > ________________________________ > From: [email protected] [[email protected]] On Behalf Of Yaakov > Stein [[email protected]] > Sent: 09 July 2010 05:06 > To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [TICTOC] FW: 1588 over MPLS draft > > Sebastien > > Yes, developing an MPLS encapsulation for 1588 is high on TICTOC's list of > things to accomplish. > > Y(J)S > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > [email protected] > Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 18:37 > To: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [TICTOC] FW: 1588 over MPLS draft > > Hi, > > After reading this interesting draft, I would have some questions for > clarification (sorry, I will not attend to the Maastricht meeting). > > My first general question is related to the objective of TICTOC regarding > this topic: is it planned that TICTOC would develop a specific mechanism for > transporting PTP over MPLS as the one proposed in this document? If so, is it > oriented to telecoms applications, or to other types of applications? > > My second question would be to better understand why there is a need for > transporting PTP over MPLS. It is still unclear to me. FYI, similar > discussions happened in June in ITU-T Q13/15 during the last Geneva meeting. > > My understanding of the context of this draft is that the network between a > PTP master and a PTP slave experiences full timing support for PTP, such as > TC in every node (or possibly BC, that is also slightly evoked in the > document?). In this context, it can be questioned if the PTP timing delivery > is really done "end-to-end", since every node has to process the PTP > messages. Therefore, is it really appropriate in this case to put the PTP > messages into a tunneling transport, such as MPLS? > > It looks more logical to me in this situation to transport the PTP timing > flows outside MPLS (e.g. simply over UDP/IP) on a hop-by-hop basis (e.g. each > node delivers its timing to the next one). > But maybe I misunderstood or missed something... > > Any thoughts? > > Thanks. > > BR, > > Sébastien > ________________________________ > De : [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] De la part de > Shahram Davari > Envoyé : mercredi 7 juillet 2010 21:36 > À : [email protected] > Objet : [TICTOC] FW: 1588 over MPLS draft > > > From: Shahram Davari > Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 12:12 PM > To: '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]' > Subject: 1588 over MPLS draft > > Hi All, > > Please find attached our first draft of 1588 over MPLS. Since we have some > technical issues converting the Word format to Txt we couldn’t upload the > draft before the cut-off date. However we will present the draft in the next > IETF meeting and will upload the draft after the meeting. > > Note that the main WG is TicToc but may require consultation with MPLS and > PWE3 WGs. > > Thanks, > Shahram Davari > _______________________________________________ > TICTOC mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc _______________________________________________ TICTOC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc
