The MPLS WG Archive

["Abdul Malick" <abdulmk@future.futsoft.com>]

Hi
I feel that even if you tunnel the signalling b/w a LSR and its remote peer,
and if this tunnel may be rerouted (for TE purpose) , then again using
per-interface label space could be a problem. Only if the tunnel is
permanent we can use per-interface label space, otherwise only per-platform
label space should be used.

Please correct me if i am wrong

Cheers
Malick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Shahram Davari" <Shahram_Davari@pmc-sierra.com>
To: <jshen@cad.zju.edu.cn>; <mpls@uu.net>
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 8:11 PM
Subject: RE: per interface lable space validity


> Hi,
>
> In your scenario, if the signaling (CR-LDP/RSVP-TE) is tunneled through
that tunnel then you can use per-interface label space, otherwise you should
use per-platform label space, because you don't know from which interface
the packet will arrive.
>
> Yours,
> -Shahram
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: shen jing [mailto:jshen@cad.zju.edu.cn]
> > Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 5:56 AM
> > To: mpls@UU.NET
> > Subject: per interface lable space validity
> >
> >
> > I'm reading rfc3036 - "LDP specification", at section 2.2.1
> > Lable spaces
> > , it is said a per interface
> > lable space only makes sense when the LDP peers are "directly
> > connected".
> > what is "directly connected" ?   If two LSRs are connected by a tunnel
> > which generate
> > another layer on Label stack , a per interface label is not
> > meaningful ?
> >
> > thanks a lot.
> >
> > James Shen
> >
>