The MPLS WG Archive

[Nabil Seddigh <nseddigh@tropicnetworks.com>]

Yakov

The proposed change is not quite clearly stated. Can you please
restate in more precise language. Is it possible to put a diagram
in the draft? E.g if we have nodes A,B,C,D with unnumbered i/f
1-6 (I have made them distict for ease of illustration):

      1       2   3          4   5      6 
    A --------- B ------------ C -------- D

The language in Section 6 of the unnum-02 draft would appear to 
mandate an unnumbered ERO as follows: A1,B3,C5

What are you proposing to change it to? Is it B1,C3,D5?

Or are you proposing that both of the above be allowed?

Please clarify.

Thanks
Nabil Seddigh
nseddigh@tropicnetworks.com



> 4) Make handling numbered and unnumberd interfaces in the ERO
>  more consistent/uniform by changing the semantics of the Unnumbered
>  interface subobject (or more precisely the Interface ID field
>  of this subobject) from:
> 
>        The Interface ID is the outgoing interface identifier with
>        respect to the LSR specified by the router ID.
> 
>    to
> 
>        The Interface ID is the interface identifier assigned to
>        the interface by the LSR specified by the router ID.
> 
>    and making other appropriate changes in the text to reflect this.
> 
> Yakov.