The MPLS WG Archive

[Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>]

Nabil,

> Yakov
> 
> For the simple example below, based on your proposal what would
> the ERO look like?

Exactly the same, as if the interfaces would be numbered. That
is, construct the ERO assuming that all interfaces are numbered.
Then replace each IP address with a tuple <interface id, Router-ID>.

Yakov.

> 
> Thanks
> Nabil Seddigh
> 
> > > 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.
"
> >