IEEE1588 worked with a number of organizations to map PTP over their
protocols.
It seems unlikely that IEEE would object to the definition of a mapping
to MPLS if the consensus was that this was the best way to carry PTP
over an MPLS network.
Obviously we should ask before publishing a specification, but the most
important starting point is to figure out the best technical solution to
the problem in hand.
Stewart (speaking as an individual contributor.
On 27/04/2011 15:25, Bhatia, Manav (Manav) wrote:
Yup, thats what i had meant - that it would require getting IEEE
involved and we should only tread down that path if its really really
required.
Cheers, Manav
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Roberts, Peter (Peter)
*Sent:* Wednesday, April 27, 2011 7.32 PM
*To:* Bhatia, Manav (Manav); Shahram Davari; [email protected]
*Subject:* RE: Updating draft-ietf-tictoc-1588overmpls
Manav,
Can you please provide a bit more background to the statement:
/I believe we had discussed that IETF cannot define new
encapsulations in Prague?/
This is probably true that it would require a stamp of approval
from IEEE but that needs to be verified.
Peter R>
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Bhatia, Manav (Manav)
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 7:41 PM
To: Shahram Davari; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [TICTOC] Updating draft-ietf-tictoc-1588overmpls
Yup, will do that.
Cheers, Manav
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shahram Davari [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 5.08 AM
> To: Bhatia, Manav (Manav); [email protected]
> Subject: RE: Updating draft-ietf-tictoc-1588overmpls
>
> Manav,
>
> In MPLS-TP the P2MP should work fine since it is all
> configured by management. May be just add some text that says
> using MPLS control plane the co-routing of the forward and
> reverse direction is not possible but using management plane
> this is possible such as in case of MPLS-TP.
>
> Thx
> Shahram
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bhatia, Manav (Manav) [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 4:35 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: Shahram Davari
> Subject: 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
--
For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html
_______________________________________________
TICTOC mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc
