The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2002-Feb> msg00212



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]  
  [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index]

L bit in Unnumbered Interface ID Subobject

  • From: Robert Raszuk <raszuk@cisco.com>
  • Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 16:42:56 +0100
  • CC: mpls@UU.NET
  • Organization: Signature: http://www.employees.org/~raszuk/sig/


Aniu,

I don't see any error - as nobody claims inter-exchange ability of ERO's
for CRLDP & RSVP-TE. Clearly lack of explicit indication if this is
loose or strick ERO sub-object simply makes crldp less capable then
rsvp-te :).

I am sure in the next iteration the flag get's added.

Rgs,
R.

> Anna Szymanska wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Unnumbered Interface ID subobject defined draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-unnum-04.txt
> has an L bit telling whether it is a strict or loose node.
> Whereas the same subobject draft-ietf-mpls-crldp-unnum-04.txt
> lacks the bit.
> Is it an error in specification ? If yes, which draft has
> correct Unnumbered Interface ID definition ?
> 
> Thanks in advance
> 
> Ania
> 
> --
> 
> Określ Swoje potrzeby - my znajdziemy ofertę za Ciebie!
> [ http://oferty.onet.pl ]