The MPLS WG Archive

[Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>]

At 05:20 PM 9/18/00, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>Thanks Lou,
>That makes some sense.
>
>For <LABEL_REQUEST> should I read
><LABEL_REQUEST> | <GENERALIZED_LABEL_REQUEST> or
>are some of the fields of GLR sufficiently
>specific to the sender for that object to need to
>be in the sender descriptor?

It's the same class so you can only have one.  I think the generalized one 
c-type = 5 can always be used.

>Is it also right to add <LABEL_SET> to
><sender descriptor> ?

Woops, not that got missed.

I think location is arguable either way, but I believe outside the sender 
description is preferable (for other message processing).  My suggestion is:

        <Path Message> ::=       <Common Header> [ <INTEGRITY> ]
                                 <SESSION> <RSVP_HOP>
                                 <TIME_VALUES>
                                [ <EXPLICIT_ROUTE> ]
                                 <LABEL_REQUEST>
                                 <LABEL_SET>
                                 [ <SESSION_ATTRIBUTE> ]
                                 [ <POLICY_DATA> ... ]
                                 <sender descriptor>
Lou


>Adrian
>
> >From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net]
> >Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 9:53 PM
> >
> >Adrian,
> >         My understanding of the BNF for Path based on the generalized
> >draft is:
> >
> >
> >       <Path Message> ::=       <Common Header> [ <INTEGRITY> ]
> >                                <SESSION> <RSVP_HOP>
> >                                <TIME_VALUES>
> >                               [ <EXPLICIT_ROUTE> ]
> >                                <LABEL_REQUEST>
> >                                [ <SESSION_ATTRIBUTE> ]
> >                                [ <POLICY_DATA> ... ]
> >                                <sender descriptor>
> >
> ><sender descriptor> ::= <SENDER_TEMPLATE> <SENDER_TSPEC>
> >                     [<ADSPEC>] [<RECORD_ROUTE>]
> >                                [ <SUGGESTED_LABEL> ]
> >                               [ <UPSTREAM_LABEL> ]
> >
> >It was in the draft and was removed due to lack of parity between the
> >protocols.  Obviously it needs to be in the eventual RSVP related spec.
> >
> >Lou
> >
> >At 04:26 PM 9/18/00, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> >>Hi Eric,
> >>
> >>Thanks for this draft, it pulls things together nicely and
> >>shows how simply UNI can be performed with existing protocols.
> >>
> >>I have just a couple of questions.
> >>
> >>Is the Propagation Delay object wholly new?  Have you any
> >>plans for what it looks like?
> >>
> >>In sections 3.4 and 5.4 (which need renumbering :-)  you use
> >>a Notify to expedite the acknowledgement of a Tear if there
> >>is no suitable message on which to piggy-back the Ack.  Why
> >>did you choose this rather than an Ack message?  The Ack
> >>message exists for exactly this purpose, while the Notify
> >>requires an Error_Spec.
> >>
> >>I believe you may have cut and pasted a typo from
> >>draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-lsp-tunnel-06.txt.  George has fixed
> >>this in v7.  TIME_VALUES should be mandatory on Path and Resv
> >>
> >>Lastly, I'm not sure that the format you have given for the
> >>Path is quite correct with regard to the GLR, LS and SL
> >>objects.  Since my version of GMPLS doesn't have anything
> >>specific to say on the subject I can only piece it together
> >>from the text...
> >>- I don't think you can have Generalized Label Request
> >>   and suggested label on the same Path message.
> >>- I think Label Set supplements both Generalized Label
> >>   Request and Suggested Label.
> >>
> >>This (and the previous point) would give
> >>
> >>  <Path Message> ::=  <Common Header> [ <INTEGRITY> ]
> >>                      <SESSION> <RSVP_HOP>
> >>                      <TIME_VALUES>
> >>                      [ <EXPLICIT ROUTE> ]
> >>                      <GENERALIZED LABEL_REQUEST> | <SUGGESTED LABEL>
> >>                      [ <LABEL SET> ]
> >>                      [ <UPSTREAM LABEL> ]
> >>                      [ <SESSION_ATTRIBUTE> ]
> >>                      [ <POLICY_DATA> ... ]
> >>                      <sender descriptor>
> >>
> >>Regards,
> >>Adrian
> >>--
> >>Adrian Farrel  mailto:af@datcon.co.uk
> >>Network Convergence Group
> >>Data Connection Ltd., Chester, UK
> >>http://www.datcon.co.uk/
> >>Tel: +44 (0) 1244 313440  Fax: +44 (0) 1244 312422
> >