The MPLS WG Archive[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index] Concerns regarding the numerous layer violations in base MPLS drafts
Hi Curtis, > That would only be the case if the L3PID on the outer tunnel (top) was > set up as MPLS. If the L3PID was set up as IPv4, then only tunnels > containing IPv4 in the payload (other tunnels with a L3PID of IPv4) > should be placed inside. > > I think this has been quite clear, but if not, we should make it > clear. The right place might be the hierarchical draft. See below. Philosophically, one could define: a) L3PID applies only when the stack depth is 1. b) L3PID applies always. Neither definition is a priori better. (a) is (I think) more convenient (for SPs). However, not being an SP myself, I will let them speak. Whatever the decision, some text somewhere should capture this. I agree, the hierarchical draft is a good place. > > Note too for IP VPNs and for BGP-free cores, traceroute will not work > > (easily) -- intermediate LSRs don't know whom to send the ICMP error > > to. Yes, one may be able to hack around this, but it ain't pretty. > > This is solved by sending the ICMP forward through the LSP. The > egress should be able to look up the destination in the ICMP packet in > the correct VPN forwarding table if private address is used. True. This is what I meant by "hack around this". But it does work. Kireeti. |
|