The MPLS WG Archive

[senthil venkatachalam <skv4@erols.com>]

Venkata,

If the vendor/carrier is willing to use static mapping and flood out the
mapping using the GMPLS extn to OSPF, then there isn't any issue w.r.t.
support for multiple unnumbered intfs.

But, the way I read the question, it sounded like he/she didn't want to run
GMPLS,
but still needed to be able to support unnumbered interfaces for MPLS.
In this case, there is no LMP, no GMPLS extns, only katz-yeung/li-schmidt extns.

Here manual configuration is ok for the local routers sharing multiple
unnumbered interfaces,
but there is no mechanism to flood out this mapping to remote nodes.

This is due to the implicit (and unstated) requirement that some subset
of GMPLS extensions be used to support unnumbered interfaces
(even for "regular" MPLS).

Regards
Senthil.


"Naidu, Venkata" wrote:

> Senthil:
>
> -> Unfortunately remote nodes won't be able to know the mapping if
> -> it is only statically configured.
>
>   Why not? GMPLS OSPF extensions floods all this info for
>   each and every link.
>
>   You may want to look at:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-0
> 4.txt
>   Sub TLV types 11 and 12.
>
>         Specifically, when an LSR advertises an unnumbered TE link,
>       the advertisement carries both the local and the remote
>       identifiers of the link.  If the LSR doesn't know the remote
>       identifier of that link, the LSR should use a value of 0 as
>       the remote identifier.
>
>   So the second case - "doesn't know the remote identifier of that
>   link" never happens if you know the remote IF_ID statically.
>
>   *Learning* and "mapping" can either be static or dynamic.
>   Doesn't matter! Finally routing (or some other) protocol floods
>   these mappings all over the network/area.
>
> Venkata Naidu
>
> This e-mail and any attachments are confidential. If you are not the
> intended recipient, please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then
> delete this message from your system. Do not copy this e-mail or any
> attachment, use the contents for any purposes, or disclose the contents to
> any other person: to do so could be a breach of confidence.