Whoops, I slightly misspoke. Amend my previous email to just say "To
answer your second question, SG15 C1123 (January 2011) states that
0x7FFA is the experimental ACh Type actually in use."
Cheers,
Andy
On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 8:32 AM, Andrew G. Malis <agmalis@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Stewart,
>
> To answer your second question, SG15 C1123 (January 2011) states that
> 0x7FFA is the experimental ACh Type actually in use by CT.
>
> Cheers,
> Andy
>
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Stewart Bryant <stbryant@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 16/03/2012 08:46, t.petch wrote:
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Stewart Bryant"<stbryant@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> To: "Fangyu Li"<fangyuli1999@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc:<lifang@xxxxxxx>;<ietf@xxxxxxxx>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 4:53 PM
>>>>
>>>> On 14/03/2012 13:36, Fangyu Li wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I support the allocation of an ACH codepoint to G.8113.1.
>>>>> For G.8113.1 had reached the technical and industry maturity to be
>>>>> assigned a code point, the codepoint allocation from IETF should allow
>>>>> the ITU-T to progress refinements to G.8113.1 such that it could
>>>>> satisfy all the functional requirements defined in RFC 5860.
>>>>
>>>> Please can you tell me version of the G.8113.1 text one would
>>>> need to implement to be able to seamlessly interwork with the
>>>> equipment that has already been been deployed?
>>>
>>> Stewart
>>>
>>> I am sure you already know the answer to that from posts made to the mpls
>>> list,
>>> where we have been told that there is currently an extensive deployment
>>> ('running code') using an experimental value (interesting that there is a
>>> last
>>> call just ending seeking to exterminate such practice, at least for
>>> application
>>> protocols) and that the wish is to move to a standards-based value which
>>> will,
>>> perforce, be a different value.
>>>
>>> Tom Petch
>>
>>
>> Tom,
>>
>> I don't think you understood my question.
>>
>> There are several version of the G.8113.1 text in circulation within
>> the ITU-T. I was asking which version accurately describes the
>> deployed protocol.
>>
>> I would be interested to also know what ACh Type it is actually running
>> on.
>>
>> Stewart
>>
>>