Shahram
I will ponder the answer to this question, but will note that
you have not addressed my second question which relates
to whether there is MPLS WG buy-in for this proposal.
- Stewart
On 24/11/2011 16:34, Shahram Davari wrote:
Hi Stewart,
The parsing required by the draft is not complex and almost all MPLS routers
have support it already. The idea was to reuse existing data plane mechanisms
and not invent a new one. This I believe is in the spirit of IETF to reuse
existing mechanisms.
I don't believe adding a shim makes the design simpler. You still need to
detect that such shim exists and for that you need parsing that doesn't even
exist today.
This draft has been implemented by vendors, so we have a working code and I
believe we also have rough consensus.
Thanks
Shahram
----- Original Message -----
From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2011 07:58 AM
To: [email protected]<[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]<[email protected]>;
[email protected]<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [TICTOC] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-tictoc-1588overmpls-02.txt
Can we wind back to my original points here
which have not addressed.
Why are is the WG proposing a design that
needs such complex parsing, against the
ethos of MPLS, when a simpler design
would be more universally applicable?
Does the WG have any input to suggest that
the design will survive a review by MPLS/PWE3
WG and then by IESG?
- Stewart
On 22/11/2011 09:12, Stewart Bryant wrote:
Speaking as an individual here, I really have a hard time
understanding why it is necessary to have quite the
egregious layer violation that this draft uses.
The idea of having an LSP type that is dedicated to
tracking the time of passage through the network
is a good idea. However MPLS is completely geared
to the concept that only the LSP endpoints know
how to resolve the payload type.
The function that you require could be achieved
by including a shim that contains the
time compensation information and adjust the
payload on egress from the LSP. That would be
rather more consistent with the MPLS architecture.
I have not seen a request for review by the MPLS
or PWE3 WGs and I would suggest that you request
that sooner rather than later since it is inevitable
that the draft will be sent there later in it's life, and
if they do not subscribe to your mode of operation
the draft is unlikely to progress.
I would also suggest that you discuss the extent
of layer violation with your AD to make sure he is
confident that this draft will pass IESG review.
- Stewart
_______________________________________________
TICTOC mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc
--
For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html
_______________________________________________
TICTOC mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc
