Re: GMPLS TE MIB

["Adrian Farrel" <afarrel@movaz.com>]

Thanks Dan,

Yes, we're aware of this issue and are discussing it.  The current 64 bit field
is something of a place holder.

Our concerns are
- to allow flexible configuration of different label types
- to keep the MIB from sprawling
- to arrive at a label type that can be used to index a GMPLS LSR MIB

Best regards,
Adrian
--
Adrian Farrel
Movaz Networks Inc.
afarrel@movaz.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <djoyal@quantumbridge.com>
To: <afarrel@movaz.com>; <mpls@UU.NET>; <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 1:12 PM
Subject: RE: GMPLS TE MIB


> Hi Adrian,
>
>  The SYNTAX of the MplsGeneralizedLabel TC specifies a fixed length of
> 64 bits. This conflicts with the GMPLS functional specification which
> defines a generalized label as being of variable length. The SYNTAX
> is inconsistent with the length of the Waveband label, for example.
>
> -Dan