The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2001-Feb> msg00343



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

Expanded ERO draft

  • From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>
  • Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 11:51:38 -0800
  • cc: "'mpls@uu.net'" <mpls@UU.NET>

Yangguang,

> ERO should contain the router ID for several reason:
> 
> 1) Simplify receiving node operation and avoid the ambiguity as Vach and Bora
> mentioned

The ambiguity pointed by Vach is the spec ambiguity, and will be addressed
in the next revision of the Internet Draft.
> 
> 2) Keep ERO operation consistent. (A node typically strip off all information
> of itself before sending to next hop, so the outbound interface ID in ERO 
> should be stripped off)
> 
> 3) Consistent format of unnumbered FA and unnumbered link. These two types of
> links don't need to be differentiated especially if the unnumbered FA is 
> through an circuit switched transport network.

What makes you think that the format is different ?

Yakov.