draft-ietf-mpls-cosfield-def-06.txt   draft-ietf-mpls-cosfield-def-07.txt 
skipping to change at page 1, line 14 skipping to change at page 1, line 14
Internet-Draft Acreo AB Internet-Draft Acreo AB
Updates: RFC 3032, RFC 3270, RFC R. Asati Updates: RFC 3032, RFC 3270, RFC R. Asati
5129, RFC 3272, RFC 3443, RFC Cisco Systems 5129, RFC 3272, RFC 3443, RFC Cisco Systems
3469, RFC 3564, RFC 3985, RFC November 17, 2008 3469, RFC 3564, RFC 3985, RFC November 17, 2008
4182, RFC 4364, RFC 4379, RFC 4182, RFC 4364, RFC 4379, RFC
4448, RFC 4761 (if approved) 4448, RFC 4761 (if approved)
Intended status: Standards Track Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: May 21, 2009 Expires: May 21, 2009
"EXP field" renamed to "Traffic Class field" "EXP field" renamed to "Traffic Class field"
draft-ietf-mpls-cosfield-def-06.txt draft-ietf-mpls-cosfield-def-07.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
skipping to change at page 7, line 16 skipping to change at page 7, line 16
references in RFC 3270 to EXP field SHOULD be taken to refer references in RFC 3270 to EXP field SHOULD be taken to refer
to the TC field. to the TC field.
b. A new term is added to section 1.1 "Terminology": b. A new term is added to section 1.1 "Terminology":
TC Traffic Class (replaces the term EXP) TC Traffic Class (replaces the term EXP)
c. In section 1.1 "Terminology" the acronym E-LSP is now understood c. In section 1.1 "Terminology" the acronym E-LSP is now understood
to mean : to mean :
E-LSP Explicitly-Inferred-PSC LSP E-LSP Explicitly TC-encoded-PSC LSP
Section 1.2 on page 5 in RFC 3270 is now changed to: Section 1.2 on page 5 in RFC 3270 is now changed to:
1.2 Explicitly-Inferred-PSC LSPs (E-LSP) 1.2 Explicitly TC-encoded-PSC LSPs (E-LSP)
The EXP field has been renamed to the TC field, and thus all The EXP field has been renamed to the TC field, and thus all
references in RFC 3270 to EXP field SHOULD be taken to refer to references in RFC 3270 to EXP field SHOULD be taken to refer to
the TC field. However, we retain the acronym E-LSP (Explicitly- the TC field. However, we retain the acronym E-LSP (Explicitly
Inferred-PSC LSP) as the acronym is in widespread use. TC-encoded-PSC LSP) as the acronym is in widespread use.
A single LSP can be used to support one or more OAs. Such LSPs A single LSP can be used to support one or more OAs. Such LSPs
can support up to eight BAs of a given FEC, regardless of how many can support up to eight BAs of a given FEC, regardless of how many
OAs these BAs span. With such LSPs, the TC field of the MPLS Shim OAs these BAs span. With such LSPs, the TC field of the MPLS Shim
Header is used by the LSR to determine the PHB to be applied to Header is used by the LSR to determine the PHB to be applied to
the packet. This includes both the PSC and the drop preference. the packet. This includes both the PSC and the drop preference.
We refer to such LSPs as "Explicitly-inferred-PSC LSPs" (E-LSP), We refer to such LSPs as "Explicitly TC-encoded-PSC LSP" (E-LSP),
since the PSC of a packet transported on this LSP depends on the since the PSC of a packet transported on this LSP depends on the
TC field (previously called the EXP field) value for that packet. TC field (previously called the EXP field) value for that packet.
The mapping from the TC field to the PHB (i.e., to PSC and drop The mapping from the TC field to the PHB (i.e., to PSC and drop
precedence) for a given such LSP, is either explicitly signaled at precedence) for a given such LSP, is either explicitly signaled at
label set-up or relies on a pre-configured mapping. label set-up or relies on a pre-configured mapping.
This is an update to RFC 3032 [RFC3032] in line with the original This is an update to RFC 3032 [RFC3032] in line with the original
intent of how this field in the MPLS Shim Header should be used intent of how this field in the MPLS Shim Header should be used
(as TC field). The RFC 3270 has itself been updated by RFC 5129 (as TC field). The RFC 3270 has itself been updated by RFC 5129
 End of changes. 5 change blocks. 
6 lines changed or deleted 6 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.35. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/