The MPLS WG Archive

[Chatur sharp <chatur_b@yahoo.com>]

Shahram,
So what is the interpretation for the draft. 

"That you can apply NULL label only iff it is
the only label present in the label stack. "

Tony could we have clarification from you on 
the draft.

C.

--- Shahram Davari <Shahram_Davari@pmc-sierra.com>
wrote:
> Chatur,
> 
> I don't think so. Since in case of label= 1, the
> draft says:
> 
> "A value of 1 represents the "Router Alert Label". 
> This label value is
> legal anywhere in the label stack except at the
> bottom."
> 
> So in case of Label=2,4 they could have written:
> "nowhere except at the
> bottom". 
> 
> -Shahram
> 
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Chatur sharp [mailto:chatur_b@yahoo.com]
> >Sent: Monday, June 12, 2000 5:08 PM
> >To: Shahram Davari
> >Subject: RE: Hierarchical Tunnel Establishment in
> RSVP-TE 
> >
> >
> >On the face of it what you say seems to be correct.
> >
> >Could it be that draft should be interpreted as:
> >
> >"As that there should be no more labels below a
> NULL
> >label. However, labels could be applied on top
> >of a NULL label. "
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >--- Shahram Davari <Shahram_Davari@pmc-sierra.com>
> >wrote:
> >> Toni,
> >> 
> >> The Encaps-draft says that the IPV4/6 Explicit
> Null
> >> Labels are only legal if
> >> they are the sole label stack entry. However, in
> >> your example the RSVP
> >> messages will have two labels, the outer label
> and
> >> the IPV4/6 Explicit Null
> >> Label. Isn't this a violation of the Encaps-draft
> >> requirement?
> >> 
> >> Regards,
> >> -Shahram
> >> 
> >> >-----Original Message-----
> >> >From: Tony Li [mailto:tli@Procket.com]
> >> >Sent: Monday, June 12, 2000 1:22 PM
> >> >To: curtis@avici.com
> >> >Cc: Tony Li; Bora Akyol; 'mpls@uu.net'
> >> >Subject: Re: Hierarchical Tunnel Establishment
> in
> >> RSVP-TE 
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Curtis,
> >> >
> >> > | If the outer tunnel is constrained (by
> >> configuration) to accept only
> >> > | inner tunnels with one L3PID, then that L3PID
> >> can be placed on the
> >> > | outer tunnel.  If there are optimization
> >> possible for a particular
> >> > | L3PID (IP src/dst hash to split loading along
> >> the way comes to mind
> >> > | for IPv4) then putting the inner L3PID on the
> >> outer tunnel has
> >> > | advantages.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >I agree that this is also possible for
> >> implementations that 
> >> >want to parse
> >> >up the label stack.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > | No where have I seen a requirement to put a
> null
> >> label on traffic
> >> > | destined to the egress LSR.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >The requirement exists if you take the more
> general
> >> approach 
> >> >of specifying
> >> >an outer L3PID of MPLS and then wish to tunnel
> >> (otherwise 
> >> >unlabeled) RSVP.
> >> >Under the approach that you've proposed, this
> would
> >> not be necessary.
> >> >
> >> >Tony
> >> >
> >> 
> >
> >
> >=====
> >I am willing to learn,  if you care to teach.
> >I am willing to teach, if you care to learn.
> >
> >__________________________________________________
> >Do You Yahoo!?
> >Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints!
> >http://photos.yahoo.com
> >
> 


=====
I am willing to learn,  if you care to teach.
I am willing to teach, if you care to learn.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints!
http://photos.yahoo.com