Ben,
Thank you for the review .
Some comments below.
Luca
On 10/04/11 16:13, Ben Campbell wrote:
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART,
please see the FAQ at
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq.
Please resolve these comments along
On 09/05/11 05:47, Yaakov Stein wrote:
Stewart
I will answer your specific questions below.
I have no specific objection to the new text that you proposed on the
PWE3 list :
In MPLS-TP, the GAL MUST be used with packets on a G-ACh on
LSPs, Concatenated Segments of LSPs, and with
I concurr with Andy.
Given that the WG has made a decision on which control plane technology
is the standard track technology we should have a statement in this
document pointing to the standard track rfc4447 so it is clear to anyone
reading the document.
In the same way we published the
...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Luca
Martini
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 6:24 PM
To: Andrew G. Malis
Cc: l2...@ietf.org; pwe3; IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-07.txt (Layer 2 Virtual
Private Networks Using BGP for Auto-discovery and Signaling
[mailto:mpls-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Alexander Vainshtein
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 9:52 PM
To: Luca Martini
Cc: m...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; Vladimir Kleiner; Idan Kaspit;
Mishael Wexler; pwe3; Oren Gal; John Shirron; Rotem Cohen
Subject: Re: [mpls] [PWE3] IETF Last Call comment
for the MPLS-TP environment , where IP is not
used.
Thanks,
Luca
Thanks,
John
Sent from my iPhone
-Original Message-
From: Luca Martini [mailto:lmart...@cisco.com]
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 1:17 PM
To: John E Drake
Cc: Alexander Vainshtein; m...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
The solution is quite simple:
Flow Labels MUST not be used in an MPLS-TP environment.
Luca
On 08/16/11 21:46, Alexander Vainshtein wrote:
Pablo,
Sorry, but I think you're wrong. Only T-PE can insert the flow label
(because only T=PE can be flow-aware). S-PE simply performs swap on
PW
Eric,
Last Call Has ended , and I did not see any objections to using the IETF
consensus instead of reserved . ( which I mean to be according to rfc
2434 )
I also support having the working changed from reserved to IETF
consensus according to rfc 2434 as suggested by Stewart.
I believe
