headers
Loa Andersson | 2 Dec 2009 14:14
Picon

wg lasxt call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-nm-framework-02

All,

this is to start a 2 week wg last call on
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-nm-framework-02.

The wg last call ends on Dec 17.

Please send yor comments to the mpls-tp <at> ietf.org mailing list.

/Loa
--

-- 

Loa Andersson                         email: loa.andersson <at> ericsson.com
Sr Strategy and Standards Manager            loa <at> pi.nu
Ericsson Inc                          phone: +46 10 717 52 13
                                              +46 767 72 92 13
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Eric Rosen | 2 Dec 2009 16:18
Picon
Favicon

Re: Regarding draft-wijnands-mpls-mldp-csc-02.txt


> The MVPN solution that L3VPN WG has to produce is based on the
> requirements developed in L3VPN WG, as specified in rfc4834, and
> *not* on what you think "will be a quite common deployment
> scenario"

There is no reason why the WG should not consider simplifications that
optimize for particular deployment scenarios, particularly if those
scenarios are common.

> supporting carrier that "does not want to deploy BGP C-multicast routing",
> which you use as a justification for the approach specified in
> draft-wijnands-mpls-mldp-csc, is *not* one of the requirements listed in
> that rfc.

I don't think that anything in the requirements doc prevents the WG from
considering design goals that or simplifications that are not explicitly
mentioned there.  If SPs are interested in such simplifications, then there
should be public, interoperable standard for them.

Also, it's made quite clear in the drafts that the WG has already approved
that BGP C-multicast routing is optional to deploy.  I don't know if anyone
will ever deploy it or not, but I'm pretty sure that an SP that does not
deploy it for signaling customer multicast routes is not going to deploy it
just to provide unaggregated CsC mLDP-in-mLDP service!  Not when there's a
much simpler solution available.

> as John pointed out in his e-mail, the approach specified in
> draft-wijnands-mpls-mldp-csc does *not* meet two of the "SHOULD"
> requirements specified in rfc4834.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Adrian Farrel | 2 Dec 2009 21:20
Favicon

Change to registry through RFC Erratum 1940

Hi IANA,

RFC 4385 created the "Pseudowire Associated Channel Types" sub-registry of 
the "Pseudowire Name Spaces (PWE3)" registry 
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/pwe3-parameters)

This registry is updated by RFC 5586

There are two issues:

1. RFC 5586 contained an error. This error has been notified on Erratum 
1940.
The proposed change has been discussed on the MPLS, PWE3, and MPLS-TP 
mailing lists and there is consensus to support the change as documented in 
the erratum.
The Erratum has been verified.

Please accept this as a request to modify the registry accordingly.

2. Examination of the registry shows that it does not actually capture the 
requested policy as stated in RFC 5586. Hopefully, this provides an 
opportunity to update the registry.

Please let me know if there are any issues.

Regards,
Adrian 

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
RFC Errata System | 3 Dec 2009 04:01
Favicon

[Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5654 (1953)


The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5654,
"Requirements of an MPLS Transport Profile".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5654&eid=1953

--------------------------------------
Type: Editorial
Reported by: Zongpeng Du <duzongpeng <at> gmail.com>

Section: 1

Original Text
-------------
Investment in equipment and facilities (Capital Expenditure
   (CAPEX)) and Operational Expenditure (OPEX) should be minimized.

Corrected Text
--------------
Investment in equipment and facilities (Capital Expenditure
   (CAPEX) and Operational Expenditure (OPEX) should be minimized.

Notes
-----
An unnecessary parenthesis.

Instructions:
-------------
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Vishwas Manral | 3 Dec 2009 07:21
Picon

Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5654 (1953)

Zongpeng,

The brakcets look good earlier. Have a look at the 2 brackets:

 (Capital Expenditure (CAPEX))

Thanks,
Vishwas

On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 7:01 PM, RFC Errata System
<rfc-editor <at> rfc-editor.org> wrote:
>
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5654,
> "Requirements of an MPLS Transport Profile".
>
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5654&eid=1953
>
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Editorial
> Reported by: Zongpeng Du <duzongpeng <at> gmail.com>
>
> Section: 1
>
> Original Text
> -------------
> Investment in equipment and facilities (Capital Expenditure
>   (CAPEX)) and Operational Expenditure (OPEX) should be minimized.
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Shaleen Saxena (ssaxena | 3 Dec 2009 19:18
Picon
Favicon

Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5654 (1953)

Hi:

The original sentence is:

1) Investment in equipment and facilities (Capital Expenditure (CAPEX)) and Operational Expenditure
(OPEX) should be minimized.

Shouldn't the second parenthesis be at the end of OPEX instead of CAPEX? That is:

2) Investment in equipment and facilities (Capital Expenditure (CAPEX) and Operational Expenditure
(OPEX)) should be minimized.

Otherwise the different 'and' in the statement are not in agreement. Or perhaps the first 'and' should be
replaced by a ','. That is:

3) Investment in equipment, facilities (Capital Expenditure (CAPEX)) and Operational Expenditure
(OPEX) should be minimized.

I guess the authors mean the 2) rather than 3).

Regards,
Shaleen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpls-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces <at> ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Vishwas Manral
> Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 1:22 AM
> To: RFC Errata System
> Cc: nurit.sprecher <at> nsn.com; satoshi.ueno <at> ntt.com; mpls <at> ietf.org;
> malcolm.betts <at> huawei.com; duzongpeng <at> gmail.com;
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Adrian Farrel | 3 Dec 2009 19:35
Favicon

Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5654 (1953)

The text is perfect as formed and published.

It says:

   Investment in equipment and facilities (Capital Expenditure
   (CAPEX)) and Operational Expenditure (OPEX) should be minimized.

It means...
Minimize investment in (equipment and facilities) and minimize investment in 
(operational expenditure).
It also explains...
1. equipment and facilities is otherwise known as Capital Expenditure
2. Capital Expenditure is abbreviated as CAPEX
3. Operational Expenditure is abbreviated as OPEX

I might have written it differently, but there is nothing wrong with it.

Cheers,
Adrian (moving back to technical work)

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Shaleen Saxena (ssaxena)" <ssaxena <at> cisco.com>
To: "Vishwas Manral" <vishwas.ietf <at> gmail.com>; "RFC Errata System" 
<rfc-editor <at> rfc-editor.org>
Cc: <mpls <at> ietf.org>; <nurit.sprecher <at> nsn.com>; <satoshi.ueno <at> ntt.com>; 
<malcolm.betts <at> huawei.com>; <duzongpeng <at> gmail.com>; 
<adrian.farrel <at> huawei.com>; <rcallon <at> juniper.net>; <dbrungard <at> att.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 6:18 PM
Subject: Re: [mpls] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5654 (1953)
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Internet-Drafts | 3 Dec 2009 22:45
Picon
Favicon

I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-framework-03.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
directories.
This draft is a work item of the Multiprotocol Label Switching Working Group of the IETF.

	Title		: MPLS-TP OAM Framework
	Author(s)	: D. Allan, I. Busi, B. Niven-Jenkins
	Filename	: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-framework-03.txt
	Pages		: 49
	Date		: 2009-12-3
	
Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) is 
   based on a profile of the MPLS and pseudowire (PW) procedures as 
   specified in the MPLS Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE), pseudowire (PW) 
   and multi-segment PW (MS-PW) architectures complemented with 
   additional Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) 
   procedures for fault, performance and protection-switching management 
   for packet transport applications that do not rely on the presence of 
   a control plane. 

   This document describes a framework to support a comprehensive set of 
   OAM procedures that fulfills the MPLS-TP OAM requirements [12].  

   This document is a product of a joint Internet Engineering Task Force 
   (IETF) / International Telecommunications Union Telecommunications 
   Standardization Sector (ITU-T) effort to include an MPLS Transport 
   Profile within the IETF MPLS and PWE3 architectures to support the 
   capabilities and functionalities of a packet transport network.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-framework-03.txt
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
z Asghari | 6 Dec 2009 11:08
Picon

emergency help

hi
I want to implement stack in mpls node.but I can not to do this job.
please help me in coding with ns-2
regards
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Chris Benson | 8 Dec 2009 01:13

Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5654 (1953)

Hi folks,

IMHO, the original text had one '(' AND one ')' too many.
The corrected text as shown in the NEXT email below
removes only the second of these extra parentheses.
The first one should also be removed. The Erratum
"corrected" Corrected Text should [IMHO] read:

 Corrected Text
 --------------
 Investment in equipment and facilities Capital Expenditure
    (CAPEX) and Operational Expenditure (OPEX) should be minimized.

With thanks, from Chris Benson.

On Wed, 2 Dec 2009, RFC Errata System wrote:

>>  Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 19:01:13 -0800 (PST)
>>  From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor <at> rfc-editor.org>
>>  To:  <benjamin.niven-jenkins <at> bt.com>,  <dbrungard <at> att.com>,
>>      <malcolm.betts <at> huawei.com>,  <nurit.sprecher <at> nsn.com>,
>>      <satoshi.ueno <at> ntt.com>,  <rcallon <at> juniper.net>,
>>      <adrian.farrel <at> huawei.com>,  <swallow <at> cisco.com>,  <loa <at> pi.nu>
>>  Cc:  <mpls <at> ietf.org>,  <duzongpeng <at> gmail.com>,  <rfc-editor <at> rfc-editor.org>
>>  Subject: [mpls] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5654 (1953)
>>  
>>  
>>  The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5654,
>>  "Requirements of an MPLS Transport Profile".
>>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane