RE: [PWE3] Generic vs Preferred CW

["Yaakov Stein" <yaakov_s at rad.com>]

Mustapha,  

> Yakov,
> You are right that the CW BCP is not just about the ECMP 
> issue. I obviously have not re-read the introduction for some time :-)

OK, we agree on the first point.

 
> I however do not agree with the idea of a single CW for all 
> applications. I know you have already proposed this, but in 
> practice, each technology has its own specifics. 

I can't agree more.
That's why the generic CW has te flag fields left for the "specifics".

To date there have only been 2 encap-dependent requirements
for the CW, namely flags (notably the defect flags in the TDM drafts
and the FECN/BECN flags in the FR draft) and pointers
(in the CEP draft).

Can you think of anything else that may be required 
that can not be supplied by the generic CW?

> I guess we 
> (or some other people) will have to make a decision for each 
> new application when it comes up.

But now we come to my second point, namely standardization.

Sure, maybe someone prefers some rearrangement of the fields,
or some other bit allocation. But the reason we need the IETF 
and PWE is to reach agreement / compromise on these issues.

Would you want the IP header to have the precise position of
the source address dependent on what the packet is carrying?
Why shouldn't the content of an MPLS packet determine
how many bits the label has?

Y(J)S

_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3 at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3