The MPLS WG Archive

[Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>]

Nabil,

> >From what you write below, the ERO will be B2,C4,D6.
> Is this correct?

yes, this is certainly a valid option.

> Another question: is your proposal precluding an ERO of
> A1,B3,C5?

no, it doesn't preclude this.

Yakov.

> 
> Best,
> Nabil Seddigh
> 
> > 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.
> > 
> >>>> 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
> >>>>
> 
> >>>
> >>> 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.
> > "
> > > >