The MPLS WG Archive

[Jonathan Lang <jplang@calient.net>]

Nabil,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nabil Seddigh [mailto:nseddigh@tropicnetworks.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 10:07 AM
> To: Jonathan Lang
> Cc: 'Yakov Rekhter'; mpls@UU.NET
> Subject: Re: Last calls on Hierarchy, Bundle, and Unnum
> 
> 
> Jonathan,
> 
> I don't think the ERO is carried in the err messages which 
> eventually get to the end nodes so some kind of ERROR_SPEC
> extension is needed in this case - looks like the definitions
> in section 8.2 of the referenced draft (and the functional desc
> draft) cover the requirement. Or did I miss something?
my mistake.  I forgot about the TLVs.  It is covered today.

Thanks,
Jonathan

> 
> There is one issue. Wouldn't it be cleaner if definitions of objects
> relevant to unnumbered interfaces were done in the unnumbered
> draft as opposed to the GMPLS drafts since as mentioned 
> in a previous thread, use of unnumbered is not restricted to 
> GMPLS. 
> 
> Some future person wishing to implement unnumbered interface support
> in a non-gmpls network will have to read 3 RFCs - 2 of them
> not relevant. This is not new for the IETF but I'm not sure
> it's desirable.
> 
> > > > 1. It would be nice if a new ERROR_SPEC c-type is defined for
> > > >    unnumbered links. This ERROR_SPEC could indicate the node
> > > >    and interface where an error occured. e.g in the case of
> > >
> > Section 8.2 of draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-06.txt 
> talks about
> > Errored Interface Identification, but only defines formats 
> for IPv4 and
> > IPv6.  If needed, this could be extended to address 
> unnumbered.  However,
> > I'm not sure it's needed.  You can already identify the 
> Node with IPv4 or
> > IPv6 addresses.  You can get the unnumbered interface from the ERO.
> 
> ---
> Best,
> Nabil Seddigh
> nseddigh@tropicnetworks.com
>