The MPLS WG Archive

[Adrian Farrel <AF@datcon.co.uk>]

Sorry Tom.

 

I'd rather like to hang on to the direction field.  It proves very useful for bi-directional tunnels!

 

What is more, when Lambda Switching extends its tentacles into the TE MIB this field will definitely need to be re-instated.

 

Did you have a particular reason why you consider it no longer appropriate to consider bi-directional tunnels?

 

Cheers,

Adrian

--
Adrian Farrel  mailto:af@datcon.co.uk
Network Convergence Group
Data Connection Ltd., Chester, UK
http://www.datcon.co.uk/
Tel: +44 (0) 1244 313440  Fax: +44 (0) 1244 312422

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas D. Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@cisco.com]
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2000 1:59 PM
To: mpls@UU.NET
Cc: arun Viswanathan; cheenu Srinivasan
Subject: Re: Additional Index for TE-MIB: mplsTunnelTable

        Hi,

        Responses are highlighted in blue.

It is not clear to me how to represent a bi-directional tunnel with the MIB.
Some of my confusion may come from the fact that I don't understand the
mplsTunnelDirection object. For example, what does it mean to have this object
set to "bi-directional"? Does it mean that this row refers to a bi-directional
tunnel? Does the TunnelDirection (in, out) have any significance at the tunnel
midpoint? What role does the cookie (or the lack of one!) play in
bi-directional tunnels?

        We will remove this object since it is a vestage from the
time when we had bi-directional tunnels in mind (this will be
removed along with the cookie objects). This will instead be replaced
by an object which indicates whether the LSR is a tunnel src, dst, or
intermediate point.

        --Tom