The MPLS WG Archive

[Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>]

Nabil,

> 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?

Certainly not, as I am proposing that "The Interface ID is the interface 
identifier assigned to the interface by the LSR specified by the router ID." 

With this in mind B1 is not a valid combination, as the interface
identifier 1 is assigned by A, not by B. And with my proposal
you can't put in the Unnumbered Interface subobject the
interface identifier assigned to the interface by one LSR, and
the router ID of some other LSR.

Ditto for C3 and D5.

Yakov.

P.S. Just like a numbered interface on an LSR is identified by the
IP address that the LSR assigns to that interface, I am suggesting
that an unnumbered interface be identified by the identified
(i/f index) that the LSR assigns to that interface and the Router-ID
of the LSR itself.