The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2001-Apr> msg00557



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]  
  [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index]

RE: doubt in RFC 3031

  • From: Eric Osborne <eosborne@cisco.com>
  • Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 10:57:43 -0400
  • Cc: alexander@marhold.at, mpls@UU.NET, mpls-ops@mplsrc.com
  • User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
  • X-GPG-Fingerprint: 6412 0836 E440 B3EA 980C 4951 611E 1819 2E71 8562

On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 04:22:57PM +0530, Bhupesh Bajaj wrote:
> hello,
> 
> as far as i believe the penultimate hop is going to behave in same way ( as far as number of lookups is concerned )in both cases with / without using this technique.."penultimate hop popping"..
> 
> so i believe it needn't be mentioned in RFC that with PNP one gets the benifit of just one lookup from penultimate hop side also as they have mentioned in RFC
> 
> waiting for comments,
>

The statement may be extraneous, but it's certainly true.  THe idea
was (I think) to point out that implicit-null causes no extra work on
the penultimate router.  Is there major objection to pointing this
out?



eric
 
> 
> thanks and regards,
> bhupesh
> 
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from Indiatimes at http://email.indiatimes.com