The MPLS WG Archive

[szymanska_anna@poczta.onet.pl]

Yakov, 

>Ania, 
> 
>> I have two questions regarding usage of unnumbered links in plain 
>> MPLS (non-G MPLS) scenario: 
>> 
>> 1) Draft draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-unnum-03.txt assumes that LSRs exchange 
>> local identifiers assigned to their unnumbered links. Why is it 
>> necessary in non-GMPLS scenario ? By non-GMPLS scenario I mean the 
>> case when RSVP messages are exchanged on the unnumbered links 
>> (data channel is the same as control channel). 
> 
>It was agreed that one always use the IF_ID HOP object on an 
>unnumbered link (see e-mail to the MPLS mailing list on 11/2/2001). 
>And if you use the IF_ID HOP object, then the choice of the data 
>interface is indicated by the upstream node using addresses and 
>identifiers used by the upstream node. 

Does it mean that the upstream node does not have to know 
IF_ID assigned to the interface by the downstream node ? 
The upstream node seams not to use the IF_ID assigned by 
the dowstream node. 

Ania 



-- 

Tego nie znajdziesz w żadnym sklepie!
[ http://oferty.onet.pl ]