The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2001-Feb> msg00353



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

Expanded ERO draft

  • From: Vach Kompella <vkompella@JasmineNetworks.com>
  • Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 12:58:40 -0800
  • Cc: Vach Kompella <vkompella@JasmineNetworks.com>, yakov@juniper.net, mpls@UU.NET

Eric,
 
The interfaces shown are numbered with an outbound perspective, if I understand Kireeti's picture correctly.  B understands that the AB link is numbered 1 according to A, and that its own BC link is numbered 1.
 
My comment is on clarifying the processing of the unnum subobjects.
 
-Vach
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Gray [mailto:eric.gray@sandburst.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 12:48 PM
To: Kireeti Kompella
Cc: vkompella@JasmineNetworks.com; yakov@juniper.net; mpls@UU.NET
Subject: Re: Expanded ERO draft

Kireeti,

    Out of curiosity, how many un-numbered interfaces can
B have that are known to it as interface 1?

--
Eric Gray

You wrote:

Vach, Yakov,

> > The other aspect is the first clause of the quoted sentence above from the
> > rsvp-unnum draft: "all initial subobjects that refer to itself."
>
> The text needs to be clarified to say something like "all initial subobjects
> of type other than Unnumbered Interface ID"...".

While the change in text is possible, it is clear that, unless the
interface is physically looped back to itself, the second subobject
does *not* refer to "itself".

             1       1       1
         A ----- B ----- C ----- D

B receives an ERO of (1, 1, 1) from A (PHOP).  B checks that (A, 1)
refers to itself, removes it.  Now it sees unnum interface 1, which
clearly points at C.  Why would B think that this "1" refers to B?

Kireeti.