Hi Stewart, looking or modifying anything beyond the top label is technically LV in MPLS. The only difference your approach has is that it doesn't need the offset to update the CF field, but the drawback is that it requires new protocol.
Note that the offset provided in Signaling is to the start of PTP PDU after all IP, UDP or Ethernet encapsulation and doesn't need to track it back to find out what is the encapsulation. Thx Shahram Thx Shahram ----- Original Message ----- From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2011 02:17 AM To: Shahram Davari Cc: '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [TICTOC] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-tictoc-1588overmpls-02.txt On 27/11/2011 02:51, Shahram Davari wrote: > Hi Stewart, > > Your proposal also does layer violation. Not in a transit time recording FEC. Time recording is a property of the FEC. > TC by nature does layer violation. Advantage of our approach is that it uses > existing PW encapsulation, and doesn't require new protocol. That depends on how it is done. Recording the transit time and feeding that time along with the packet into a BC is not LVing. Also this draft is not just about PW encaps. > > Your solution can be further explored in a new draft as a more generic > solution, noting that requires new protocol and new parsing. > Compared to existing P routers you require new protocol and new parsing. Stewart _______________________________________________ TICTOC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc
