The MPLS WG Archive

["Abes, Andi" <aabes@quarrytech.com>]

What is the advantage of doing this,
as opposed to simply using different Tunnel ID's
and setting the extended tunnel ID to 0 
(as the spec suggests) ?

Andi.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dimitry Haskin [mailto:dhaskin@nexabit.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2000 4:27 PM
> To: Abes, Andi; Dimitry Haskin; David Charlap; mpls@UU.NET
> Subject: RE: FW: I-D
> ACTION:draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-tunnel-applicability-01.t xt
> 
> 
> > Dimitry,
> > 
> > Yes, you're right - 
> > it will probably work - but it will defeat the purpose 
> > of the extended ID.
> > 
> No, it will not if used judiciously by cooperating nodes.
> 
> > Andi.
> > 
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Dimitry Haskin [mailto:dhaskin@nexabit.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2000 4:12 PM
> > > To: David Charlap; mpls@UU.NET
> > > Cc: Abes, Andi
> > > Subject: RE: FW: I-D
> > > ACTION:draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-tunnel-applicability-01.t xt
> > > 
> > > 
> > > A small but not insignificant correction.
> > > 
> > > > > ...
> > > > > 1. For LSP's to be belong to the same session they need
> > > > >    to share the same egress point and tunnel ID.
> > > > >    If the exteneded tunnel ID is set to the Ingress IP 
> > > address, only
> > > > >    LSP's originating at the same ingress could ever 
> > belong to the
> > > > >    same session.
> > > > 
> > > > Yes.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > There is nothing to prevent nor it is an error for LSPs 
> > originating at
> > > different ingress nodes to share the same extended tunnel ID 
> > > even if this ID
> > > happen to be set to an address of one of the ingress nodes.
> > > 
> > > Dimitry
> > > 
> > 
>