The MPLS WG Archive

[Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau@cisco.com>]

At 11:08 AM 10/30/2001 +0530, Khuzema Pithewan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It would be great from understanding point of view if it can be
> answered
> more elaborately.

        

I don't
understand the question.

> the question still remains..whats
> wrong in having IfTable interface entry at
> both ends, which can be provisioned from
> mpls-te-mib.

        

Nothing. I
think that we all agree that this works.

> note that..it may not be done
> manually at tail-end.

        

You want
this to be done through signalling?

        

--Tom

        

Khuzema.

> ----------
> From:         Thomas Nadeau[SMTP:tnadeau@cisco.com]
> Sent:         Tuesday, October 30, 2001 5:41 AM
> To:   Dominic-Savio, Patrick
> Cc:   'mpls@uu.net'
> Subject:      RE: Question on tunnel Interface (w.r.t TE MIB)
>
>
>
>
>               Most if not all MPLS implementations that I know of only
> require the operator
>       to configure the tunnel at the head end.
>       
>       But, if you want to treat a tunnel as a real interface (and assign
> IP addresses etc. to it at both ends)
>
>
>         I would categorize the use of a single interface as a "real"
> interface
> configuration as well.
>
>
>
>       you will have to have interface configuration at both the head and
> tail ends.
>
>
>         That is possible using the existing MIB. I think that we have
> violent agreement on this point.
>
>
>
>       If you don't have a tail end interface configuration the only reason
> to use tunnel interfaces is probably to make the tunnel *look* like an
> interface on the head end router. This however means that you are treating
> it as an interface on one side and treating it as a simple terminating
> tunnel on the other side. This seems anomalous.  
>
>
>         I guess that you are entitled to your opinion. My customers
> don't think that this approach is so anomalous.
>
>
>
>       If your implementation wishes to create an
>       interface for the tail end of the tunnel, it can do this based on
> the acceptance of
>       an RSVP-TE session at the tail point, or via manual configuration.
> However, making
>       this ifIndex consistent with the one at the head automatically is
> something that I think you
>       will have to do manually.
>       
>       I think you misunderstood, the actual value of the ifIndex is of no
> consequence,
>       you just have to have a corresponding interface at the other end.
>
>
>         Okay, so what is the problem then? 8)
>
>         --Tom
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.