[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Label Set Object/Tlv
see inline
Venkat Dabbara wrote:
>
> comments inline.........
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be>
> To: "venkat" <venkat.dabb@wipro.com>
> Cc: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
> Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 8:56 PM
> Subject: Re: Label Set Object/Tlv
>
> > hi see in-line
> >
> > > Venkat Dabbara wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > hai ,
> > >
> > > In draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-cr-ldp-06.txt
> > > 2.5.1. Procedures
> > > A Label Set is defined via one or more Label Set TLVs.
> > > Specific
> > > labels/subchannels can be added to or excluded from a
> > > Label
> > > Set via
> > > Action zero (0) and one (1) TLVs respectively. Ranges
> > > of
> > > labels/subchannels can be added to or excluded from a
> > > Label
> > > Set via
> > > Action two (2) and three (3) TLVs respectively.
> > >
> > > The first line of the sec 2.5.1 says a label set is defined via
> > > one or
> > > more LabelSet TLVs. My interpretation
> > > about this is that a label request can have multiple Label Set
> > > TLVs in
> > > it with different action types corresponding
> > > to each label set TLV. Am i right ??
> >
> > i think so
> >
> > > If i am wrong please do clarify ...
> > >
> > > If yes, then assume i get a request with one label set TLV with
> > > action
> > > type 0 which has a list of labels
> > > and other Label set TLV with action type 1 which has a range of
> > > Labels.
> > > Now in this case i go about
> > > picking up a label from the second label set TLV only if i am not
> > > able
> > > to pick up a label from the first
> > > label set TLV....Is that true ??
> >
> > i think the operation is
> > label set := label set tlv[1] AND label set tlv[2] AND ... label set
> > tlv[n]
> > and not, if not label set tlv[1] then label set tlv[2] etc. think
> > because
> > the action refer to the whole label set as indicated in gmpls-sig
>
> Sir, as per my understanding action type refers to individual label set TLV
> in a
> label set.
> Your argument is confusing. Suppose i go with ur argument and
> when i have two disjoint label set TLV as a part of label set, then my valid
> label set
> becomes all the labels in the first label set TLV plus all the labels in the
> label set TLV.
> This is what u meant ??
yes see below
> N consider the same situation now with two intersecting label set TLVs as a
> part of label set.
> As per ur argument, now the valid label set will be the intersection of the
> two or the bigger label
> set TLV ??
the label set is defined as the union of the labels each
of the label set tlvs/objects refers to, processing is
performed on the resulting label set
> Infact i would consider this situation to be misleading one. Some thing
> similar to the situations
> u have listed below.
misleading in which sense, the point is to be capable to tackle
all the potential cases, if one of these cases has no meaning at
all one generates an error (see below)
> Please do clarify .
i would have better use the term UNION instead of the above to
explain this;
the point is to be capable to list an individual list UNION an
inclusive range for instance: 1,3,5,7-11 would be include
individual[1,3,5] UNION include range[7-11];
thus one expect here to see disjoint label values (in each set)
or if this happen a common action such that no problems as the
ones explained here below would occur (ie different actions with
non-disjoint value)
once again, when situation such as the following occurs:
- include label x and exclude label x
- include label x and exclude label range [k,..,z]
- include label range [t,..,y] and exclude label range [k,..,z]
thus when the exclude set is larger than include set (ie over a
non-disjoint value set) an error should be generated.
hope this clarifies.
> thanks
> venkat
>
> >
> > > Now situation may get even worse when i have a Label set TLV with
> > > action
> > > type to include a label
> > > set and other Label Set TLV with action type exclude. I knoe such
> > > situations are not practical but
> > > sure needs to be handled someway.
> >
> > when conditions such as
> > - include label x AND exclude label x
> > - include label x AND exclude label range [k,..,z]
> > - include label range [t,..,y] AND exclude label range [k,..,z]
> >
> > thus when the exclude set is larger and include the include
> > set, an error should be generated.
> >
> > - dimitri.
> >
> > > Please do clarify
> > >
> > > venkat
> > >
> > > PS: Please don't bother about the disclaimer which come attached with
> > > this
> > > mail.
> >
> > --
> > Papadimitriou Dimitri
> > E-mail : dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be
> > Website: http://www.rc.bel.alcatel.be/~papadimd/index.html
> > Address: Alcatel - Optical NA, Fr. Wellesplein, 1
> > B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium
> > Phone: Work: +32 3 2408491 - Home: +32 2 3434361
>
> Name: Wipro_Disclaimer.txt
> Wipro_Disclaimer.txt Type: Text Document (application/x-unknown-content-type-txtfile)
> Encoding: x-uuencode
--
Papadimitriou Dimitri
E-mail : dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be
Website: http://www.rc.bel.alcatel.be/~papadimd/index.html
Address: Alcatel - Optical NA, Fr. Wellesplein, 1
B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium
Phone: Work: +32 3 2408491 - Home: +32 2 3434361