The MPLS WG Archive

[Sukanta Ganguly <sganguly@opulentsystems.com>]

Hi,
  I see the "non-mpls router" definition from your point. I was just 
trying to lay out the possibilities and was not trying to defend 
or beat up on any one approach. I understand the problem about having 
a non-mpls island between two MPLS LSP's and the issues with loss 
of knowledge as far as the label linkages are concerned and I did 
mention that in my previous reply.
  Coming back to your definition of "mpls aware router", what would 
happen if the non-mpls complaint router detects an MPLS packet. I 
don't believe it has been defined any where, is that true?

SG
  

At Tuesday, 9 October 2001, "Arun M. Thomas" <AMammenT@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Just a comment....  As Eric mentioned, it seems to be a matter of
>definition.  In order for the tunneling idea to work, the router,
while it
>may not have an MPLS daemon running to handle label exchange, still 
needs to
>be capable of detecting MPLS labelled packets.  As soon as that 
is true, I
>don't really think it's valid to say the router is a non-mpls router.
>(That's my definition.... If what was meant originally by "non-mpls 
router"
>was simply that no handling of labels is ongoing, then all that's 
written
>below continues to be valid.
>
>-AMT
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-mpls@UU.NET [mailto:owner-mpls@UU.NET]On Behalf Of Hongwei
>Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2001 8:58 AM
>To: sganguly@opulentsystems.com
>Cc: mpls@UU.NET
>Subject: RE:
>
>THX for discussion :).  Yes, tunnel may be another idea, but it 
will more
>complicate.  The mpls LERs should be policed to be aware of tunnels,
and if
>the LERs around the non-mpls island want to share mpls knowledge 
(such as
>labels and TTLs),  every LER has to know which LER across the island 
is the
>next hop. The non-mpls router is a bottleneck if it has to be routed
>through.
>
>--hongwei
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Sukanta Ganguly [mailto:sganguly@opulentsystems.com]
>Sent: 09 October 2001 15:57
>To: Hongwei
>Subject: RE:
>
>Depends on the vendor implemetation. The packet can either tunneled 
so that
>it retains its MPLS tag via a non-MPLS network or the MPLS tag(s) 
can be
>completely removed from the packet in which if the packet travels 
through a
>MPLS island further then new tags have to be inserted and new LSP's 
have to
>be used. In the latter case the sender's MPLS knowledge which as 
originally
>present in the packet is lost.
>
>SG
>