The MPLS WG Archive[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index] BNF for GMPLS path message (was Re: draft-gray-mpls-rsvp-oif- uni-ext)
At 06:01 PM 9/18/00, Eric Gray wrote: >Lou, > > Actually, there is nothing in the generalized >signaling draft to indicate _where_ in a PATH message >SUGGESTED_LABEL or UPSTREAM_LABEL are supposed to be. Eric, You're right. This should be corrected. >We will happily align the RSVP UNI signaling draft to >conform to the generalized signaling draft if/when it >does include this information. The next rev will have it. (Assuming I can influence the next rev ;-) > Why do you feel that they should be part of the >Sender Descriptor? Because then it automatically gets included in other messages, in particular the PathErr msg. Lou > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net] > > Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 1:53 PM > > To: Adrian Farrel > > Cc: egray@zaffire.com; mpls@UU.NET > > Subject: BNF for GMPLS path message (was Re: > > draft-gray-mpls-rsvp-oif-uni-ext) > > > > > > 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 > >
|
|