The MPLS WG Archive

["Thomas D. Nadeau" <tnadeau@cisco.com>]

At 07:41 PM 7/26/2001 +0530, Apratim Mukherjee wrote:
> > Hi ,
> >
> > Thanks for the clarifications . But a few doubts persist ...
> > >2. the object mplsTunnelIngressId is defined to be used as the
> > >ExtendedTunnelId .
> >
> >          Yes.
> >
> > >But then where will the SenderTemplate object's
> > >Sender IP address come from ?
> >
> >          EgressTunnelId.
>First , do you mean EgressLSRId by this ... but this could only be
>IngressLSRId if anything .
>
>But , this is also being used as extended tunnel id , in which case it COULD
>be 0 ... then isn't there an indexing problem ?

         Why? 0 is a perfectly valid index.

>I realise that this question has been asked before but i could not find any
>satisfactory conclusion to a thread that speaks about this .
>One of the promising threads ends on this note from David Charlap ( from the
>archives : http://cell.onecall.net/mhonarc/mpls/2001-pr/msg00426.html)
> >Then there is potential for conflict between the TE MIB and RSVP-TE
> >itself. ...........
> >I can only assume that the TE MIB was based upon the features of >RSVP-TE
>that are commonly in use, and can not fully accomodate all of >its features.
>If someone build a router that supports multipoint-to-point >LSPs using
>RSVP-TE, the TE MIB will have to be updated, or that >implementation will be
>unable to properly represent these kinds of LSPs >using it.
>
>Is this then an unresolved problem ?

         I don't think that this is still a problem. The current indexing
comes right from the RSVP/CR-LDP specifications, so if there is
a problem, those protocols will be broken too.

         --Tom