Hi Shahram, Its been a while since I read this draft as well.... After reading it again and reading your draft the second time, indeed the issue identification of PTP LSP by intermediate TCs is not addressed in the draft I wrote. This can be solved by extending the PTP FEC signaling defined in the draft between ordinary and boundary clocks to also address signaling between all PTP aware LSRs (i.e. including TCs). The approach described in your draft is also a valid starting point.
Best, Ron On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 8:03 PM, Shahram Davari <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Ron, > > > > Hope you are doing fine. Sorry for my comment, I had read it a while back > and couldn’t remember it precisely. However, let’s discuss it: > > > > 1) How do the Intermediate LSRs detect that a packet contains PTP? Do > you require snooping at line rate? > > 2) How is a normal Ethernet or ATM or FR PW packet that uses CW is > differentiated from a packet carrying PTP? > > > > Thanks, > > Shahram > > *From:* Ron Cohen [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Monday, July 12, 2010 10:38 PM > *To:* Shahram Davari > *Cc:* Michel Ouellette; [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [TICTOC] FW: 1588 over MPLS draft > > > > Shaharm, > > SD> I know Ron had a nice draft, but the issue with that draft is that it > required Deep packet inspection at line rate for all packets. Also it > requires use of CW. > > Thanks for the compliment, but you probably read someone's else draft. > Here it is http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ronc-ptp-mpls-00 > > > > The draft defines a PTP PW FEC (see section 6), hence it doesn't require > any inspection. CW is not used (see figure 5). > > > > It does specify a direct PTP over MPLS mapping, without the additional use > of Ethernet or IP encapsulation. > > > > Best, > > Ron > > > > >
_______________________________________________ TICTOC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc
