Manav I don't agree that IETF can not define new encaps - it certainly can. It is just that we have not come to agreement that a new encap is needed.
I think we need language that states that for time delivery co-routed paths are needed, but how to accomplish this for P2MP LSPs is for further study. I agree with the other proposals. Y(J)S -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bhatia, Manav (Manav) Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 02:35 To: [email protected] Subject: [TICTOC] Updating draft-ietf-tictoc-1588overmpls Folks, I am working on updating draft-ietf-tictoc-1588overmpls as per the WG feedback. As part of this I will change the OSPF and IS-IS capabilities to be per link as against per node that its currently defined as. Will also clarify that FCS retention for the payload Ethernet described in [RFC4720] MUST not be used. Should I remove Sec 5.3 "1588 over pure MPLS mode" as I believe we had discussed that IETF cannot define new encapsulations in Prague? I will also add some verbiage that P2MP LSPs may not work as they only provide unidirectional traffic flow and cannot guarantee a symmetrical path back to the head nodes. Anything else? Cheers, Manav -- Manav Bhatia, Service Router Product Group (SRPG) Alcatel-Lucent, India _______________________________________________ TICTOC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc _______________________________________________ TICTOC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc
