The MPLS WG Archive

[David Charlap <David.Charlap@marconi.com>]

Eric Gray wrote:
>
> Maybe I missed something: I thought support for unnumbered links
> needed to be added for GMPLS because there are problems with these
> links in the general case.  I was not aware that there are problems
> with unnumbered links in the Ethernet, PPP, ATM and Frame Relay
> cases or in basic signaling of MPLS explicit routes.
>
> What exactly are the problems with using unnumbered links in the
> specific cases defined for MPLS?

Without extensions, an ERO can not specify which of several parallel
unnumbered links should be used for an LSP.

The unnumbered draft defines a new ERO subobject, which will allow for
this kind of specification.

But without thit unnumbered-link extensions in the IGP's topology, the
information necessary to compute an ERO using this subobject is not
present.

-- David