On 27/11/2011 06:54, Yaakov Stein wrote:
Stewart
I proposed precisely this approach at IETF-80
(unfortunately, since becoming AD you haven't been able to attend TICTOC
meetings :( )
Yes and understand that I am not participating in this
discussion as an AD, other than on one specific process point:
i.e. to advise you to get a formal signoff that the MPLS WG are
cool with this.
The WG decided to proceed with the simpler approach first,
and to consider pursuing the more generic approach after the first one
progressed.
I call the present draft "simpler" because it reuses existing encapsulations
and 1588 procedures.
It just requires control protocol work and having the LSR recognize a specific
label.
The idea is that the specific label triggers some specific processing,
This we need with any approach, and is a cool idea.
just like specific MAC addresses or IP addresses trigger specific functionality
in switches or routers respectively.
(I agree that it is not just a matter of sending the packet up to a CPU for
special processing,
since it requires a HW timestamp, but there are several approaches to solving
this problem.)
We originally spoke about using a reserved label,
but feedback from the MPLS WG was that we had little chance of getting such a
limited resource.
So the obvious choice was telling the LSR about specific labels.
This bit I like and should be carried forward.
Since Beijing we have had regular participation of people from the MPLS WG
(including George)
and some of the TICTOC regulars, including the draft authors and yours truly,
participate in MPLS too.
That is not the same as presenting this at MPLS WG (which I do not think has
happened yet) or asking for a review by the MPLS WG.
- Stewart
_______________________________________________
TICTOC mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc
