Re: RFC3473

["Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>]

Hi M,

I see the following in RFC3473...

2.3. Generalized Label Object

   The format of a Generalized Label object is:

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |            Length             | Class-Num (16)|   C-Type (2)  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                             Label                             |
   |                              ...                              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   See [RFC3471] for a description of parameters and encoding of labels.


Looks like a C-Num and a C-Type from where I'm standing.

Cheers,
Adrian

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <m.kim2@chello.nl>
To: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 4:35 PM
Subject: RFC3473


> Hi, I was reading the RFC 3473 and observed that Class-Num and C-Type in label were not
specified and it gives only reference to the RFC 3471 but there are no definition of
Class-Num or C-Type defined in RFC 3471.
>
> So what is Class-Num and C-Type?
>
> M
>
>
>
>