The MPLS WG Archive[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index] Transport address --- TCP SESSIONS
cks>> cks>> Hi ; My question is regarding the Transport address in the LDP hello cks>> ... cks>> cks>> Is it reasonable for a router to add its ROUTER ID into the Transport cks>> TLV of hello... cks>> consider cks>> b1 > a1, b2 > a2, b3 > a3 cks>> cks>> _______ ________ cks>> |LSR A |a1 <---L1-------> b1 |LSR B | cks>> |ID:a1 |a2 <---L2-------> b2 | ID:b1 | cks>> |_______|a3 <---L3-------> b3 |________| cks>> cks>> cks>> Say LSR A always send ITS routerID (a1) as the transport TLV in Hello cks>> instead of its Interface IP addresses... TCP session will be cks>> established properly on LINK L1 cks>> cks>> Now trasport Address in Hellos on L2 & L3 is a1 and LSR B will try to cks>> establish TCP session with address a1 for interfaces b2 & b3 and that cks>> will be through link L1 again ... LINKS L2 & L3 will never be cks>> utilized ... Not necessarily they should go out of link L1. They may go out of link L2, L3 (Perhaps what u r refering here is loopback router address - which typically would be router id, but not necessarily.) And it depends more upon the implementation of the TCP/IP stack in Box A. So the answer to the question below is Yes! cks>> So my question is IS IT VALID/ACCEPTABLE to use ROUTER ID as the cks>> TRANSPORT ADDRESS INSTEAD of INterface address ...??? -abhijit
|
|