Dear Yaakov, perhaps my wording wasn't precise. I think of ACH option not as PTP-over-MPLT-TP transport but as PTP interworking between 1588 MPLS-TP domain and 1588 non-MPLS-TP (IP/UDP) domain.
Regards, Greg On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Yaakov Stein <[email protected]> wrote: > Greg > > Yes, a dedicated Ach is a possibility. I mentioned that as using the GAch > format. I actually like this idea. > > But why do you believe that this is any less of a layer violation ? > The timestamps come from layer 1 (they are physical mechanisms) > while MPLS is somewhere around layer 2 or higher. > If the MPLS is carried over Ethernet or some other CRC protected layer 2, the > CRC would need to be updated. > If there is some integrity protection at layer 1 or 2 then it will break when > we update the TC field, > and the packet would be discarded. > If there is layer 2 encryption, the mechanism won't be applicable unless we > open and close the encryption > at a link-by-link basis. > > Y(J)S > > -----Original Message----- > From: Greg Mirsky [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 19:46 > To: Yaakov Stein > Cc: Alexander Vainshtein; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [TICTOC] FW: 1588 over MPLS draft > > Dear Yaakov and All, > > <snip> > >> >> <YJS> YES ! This is my method number 3. A new reserved label. Of course >> we need to convince the MPLS >> WG to give us one (there aren't that many ...) >> > GIM>> What if instead of LSP/PW as PTP transport we use dedicated to > 1588 ACH in an MPLS-TP DCN? TC-capable nodes might be interconnected > by DCN links and processing TC would not violate network layers. > > Regards, > Greg > _______________________________________________ TICTOC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc
