The MPLS WG Archive

[Hang Liu <hliu@tellium.com>]

Hi,

We have a question about how to carry component interface IDs in RRO. In
section 7 of draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-unnum-03, the IF_ID seems to be the link
bundle ID for bundled links. Do we need an IF_ID subobject of RRO similar to
IF_ID RSVP_HOP.

Hang Liu

-----Original Message-----
From: Yakov Rekhter [mailto:yakov@juniper.net]
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 12:25 PM
To: Jonathan Lang
Cc: Nabil Seddigh; mpls@UU.NET; Kireeti Kompella
Subject: Re: Last calls on Hierarchy, Bundle, and Unnum 


Jonathan,

> > From: Yakov Rekhter [mailto:yakov@juniper.net]
> > Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 5:19 PM
> > To: Nabil Seddigh
> > Cc: mpls@UU.NET; Kireeti Kompella; Yakov Rekhter
> > Subject: Re: Last calls on Hierarchy, Bundle, and Unnum 
> > 
> > 
> > Nabil,
> > 
> > > I have just had a look at the 03 version of the unnumbered links
> > > draft. Seems like I missed last call so maybe this is too 
> > late but...
> > > I have a few suggestions in relation to the draft:
> > > 
> > > 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 
> > >    admission control failure. In a number of 
> > >    current RSVP implementations for numbered networks, the 
> > >    ip address of the interface where failure occured is inserted
> > >    into the ERROR_SPEC. It would be nice to have similar information
> > >    for in the unnumbered case. One would then know the exact
> > >    link where the failure occured.
> > 
> > ok.
> > 
> 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.

Good point. 

Yakov.