Re: Fwd: RE: {SUKLM} numbering scheme

["manoj juneja" <manojkumarjuneja@hotmail.com>]

Hi Lou,
        In the latest GMPLS draft(draft-ietf-mpls-generalized
-signalling-05.txt), Generalized Label Request object has been
modified. Now, It consists of fields LSP encoding type, G-PID and
switching type (newly added field). The reference to draft-kompella
-ospf-gmpls-extensions-02.txt has been made for the description of
switching type field. The latest document that I can found regarding
GMPLS extensions to ospf is draft-kompella-ospf-gmpls-extensions-01.txt
and this document doesn't mention about switching type. Please clarify
where to look for the description of this field.

Regards,
manoj.



>From: Lou Berger <lberger@movaz.com>
>To: "manoj juneja" <manojkumarjuneja@hotmail.com>
>CC: ccamp@ops.ietf.org,lberger@movaz.com,Eric.Mannie@ebone.com
>Subject: Re: Fwd: RE: {SUKLM} numbering scheme
>Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 10:22:28 -0400
>
>Thank you for catching this.
>
>Lou
>
>At 09:26 PM 7/25/01, manoj juneja wrote:
>>Hi Eric and Lou,
>>                   The new GMPLS signalling drafts still distinguish
>>between different SDH and SONET version of specifications (like 2000,
>>1995 etc.). Eric, As u said earlier that we will be having only one
>>value for SDH and one for SONET LSP encoding type. please see the mail
>>below for further information. I want to know that whether this has been
>>done intentionally or it is just a bug that still need to be removed.
>>
>>Please clarify.
>>
>>Regards,
>>manoj.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>From: "Mannie, Eric" <Eric.Mannie@ebone.com>
>>>>To: 'manoj juneja' <manojkumarjuneja@hotmail.com>, ccamp@ops.ietf.org
>>>>CC: "'lberger@movaz.com'" <lberger@movaz.com>
>>>>Subject: RE: {SUKLM} numbering scheme
>>>>Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 21:38:10 +0200
>>>>
>>>>Hello Manoj,
>>>>
>>>>The label is the same of course.
>>>>
>>>>The difference between SDH ITU-T G.707 1996 and SDH ITU-T G.707 2000 is 
>>>>a
>>>>small bug coming from an old version. That should be removed by Lou. We
>>>>should have only one SDH LSP encoding type value for SDH (same for 
>>>>SONET).
>>>>
>>>>Lou: thanks to correct it.
>>>>
>>>>For the conversion table, Maarten should still have it.
>>>>
>>>>Kind regards,
>>>>
>>>>Eric
>>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: manoj juneja [mailto:manojkumarjuneja@hotmail.com]
>>>>Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 8:28 PM
>>>>To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
>>>>Subject: {SUKLM} numbering scheme
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Hi All,
>>>>           I have a doubt regarding {SUKLM} numbering scheme. If I
>>>>allocate one VC-4 signal from STM-64 link, will the {SUKLM} returned be
>>>>different if LSP encoding type indicates SDH ITU-T G.707 1996 or SDH
>>>>ITU-T G.707 2000 ?
>>>>
>>>>Eric, on the ipo u and marteen once exchanged the conversion table for
>>>>EDCBA and SU, If that table is correct, can u please tell me the
>>>>formula from which u derived that table ?
>>>>
>>>>Regards,
>>>>manoj.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>_________________________________________________________________
>>>>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>_________________________________________________________________
>>>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at 
>>>http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
>>>
>>
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
>


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp