The MPLS WG Archive

[Nabil Seddigh <nseddigh@tropicnetworks.com>]

Yakov

The next question is just begging to be asked. If both B2,C4,D6
and A1,B3,C5 are valid EROs, does this not pose interoperability
problems?

Maybe it's useful to add a field in the unnum ero subobject 
that specifies whether the i/f is outgoing or incoming relative
to the router id. The draft could also mandate that all ero
subobjects in a PATH msg must be of the same type - i.e. 
have i/f that are incoming or outgoing.

Best,
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.
> 
> > >>>> 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.