The MPLS WG Archive

[Bora Akyol <bora@cisco.com>]

I accept I was being cryptic. The addition of the router ID to the unnumbered
ERO sub-object was based on the discussion the mpls mailing list triggered by
the draft-akyol-mpls-expanded-ero-00.txt draft.

The definition of the ERO subobject describing unnumbered interfaces prior to
the "Expanded ERO" draft did not include the router ID.

No intent to claim credit for the **entire** ERO sub-object on my part.

Bora


Kireeti Kompella wrote:

> Bora,
>
> > And that object was based on my now expired draft in
> > draft-akyol-mpls-expanded-ero-00.txt
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "that object"; the only reference to
> an object in David's mail is
>
> > The unnumbered draft defines a new ERO subobject, which will allow for
> > this kind of specification.
>
> The unnumbered draft (and the ERO subobject for specifying unnumbered
> links) *preceded* your expired draft; what's your basis for claiming
> that the ERO subobject is based on your draft?
>
> Kireeti.
>
> ------------ Original Mail --------------
>
> Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 09:46:01 -0700
> From: Bora Akyol <bora@cisco.com>
> To: David Charlap <David.Charlap@marconi.com>
> CC: mpls@uu.net
> Subject: Re: Questions on unnumbered links
>
> Yes
>
> And that object was based on my now expired draft in
> draft-akyol-mpls-expanded-ero-00.txt
>
> I guess as people get around to implementing this stuff, they realize that
>
> they need more information. This is what happens when you first write the
> draft and then write the code.
>
> Additionally, there is quiet a few "implementation" decisions that you
> make as you write the CSPF and traffic engineering database code as well.
> Sounds like fun, it sure is.
>
> Bora
>
> David Charlap wrote:
>
> > 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