The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2001-Feb> msg00359



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

Expanded ERO draft

  • From: Bora Akyol <akyol@pluris.com>
  • Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 13:40:08 -0800
  • Cc: Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>, mpls@UU.NET, vkompella@JasmineNetworks.com, yakov@juniper.net

Or alternately, one can add the router ID to the unnumbered ERO to 
remove any ambiguities and also simplify fast reroute.

Bora

At 4:34 PM -0500 2/27/01, Eric Gray wrote:
>Kireeti,
>
>     Thanks, and thanks to Vach as well.
>
>     I guess the bottom line is - what Yakov said applies:
>i.e. (paraphrasing) all self references refers to references
>other than un-numbered interface IDs.  This might be a
>point that would be covered in the BCP you mentioned...
>
>--
>Eric Gray
>
>You wrote:
>
>>  Hi Eric,
>>
>>  >     Out of curiosity, how many un-numbered interfaces can
>>  > B have that are known to it as interface 1?
>>
>>  One *outgoing* interface.  To clarify, in the picture below,
>>  the LSP goes left to right, and the interface indices are
>>  assigned by the LSR to the left.  So, the index on the AB
>>  link was assigned by A.  B of course also could have assigned
>>  an index to the BA link; if so, the value should be distinct
>>  from any other index assigned by B.  So, the BA link could not
>>  (in this instance) get an index of 1.  However, B could assign
>>  1 to the BA link if it assigns 2 to the BC link.
>  >
>  >              1        1        1
>  >          A -----> B -----> C -----> D
>  >
>  > Kireeti.