Yakov, > I am thus led to reiterate my proposal for completely generic MPLS mechanism > for TC, > a method that eliminates all the FCS and UDP checksum problems that we have > recently discussed. > > We need only to define a new PW type with an extended control word that > carries a CF. > The payload could be anything - NTP, 1588, RFC-868, one-way delay OAM, etc. > We can use the label-range idea from the present draft, and similar routing > extensions
What label range are you referring to? AFAIK there isnt any label range defined in this document. The label that 1588 uses is signalled by RSVP to all the other nodes. Also, what prevents the same mechanism to be used for NTP? If its NTP that we are supporting then one does not need to provide the offset in the RSVP object. The routing extensions remain the same and it NTP also works. Thus the mechanism defined in this draft will work for NTP as well. Jack > to signal the TC capability. > > Y(J)S > > > > _______________________________________________ > TICTOC mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc > _______________________________________________ TICTOC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc
