The MPLS WG Archive

["Igor Achkinazi" <achkinazi@hotmail.com>]

Thanks, Steven

However MPLS UNI implies MPLS signaling that adds complexity. In LSP 
hierarchy case it does not help at all. I intentionally asked about static 
configuration, because it is simple and easy to control. And it is much, 
much easier to implement.
Sorry, I do not want to use UNI :)

Best regards,
Igor

>From: "Dekany, Steven" <steven.dekany@marconi.com>
>To: Igor Achkinazi <achkinazi@hotmail.com>, tnadeau@cisco.com
>CC: mpls@UU.NET
>Subject: RE: Static MPLS configuration
>Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 14:37:01 -0500
>
>MPLS UNI solves this from a different direction. You may want to take a 
>look
>at that.
>
>Best Regards,
>
>
>Steven
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Igor Achkinazi [mailto:achkinazi@hotmail.com]
>Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 11:46 AM
>To: tnadeau@cisco.com
>Cc: mpls@UU.NET
>Subject: Re: Static MPLS configuration
>
>
>Sorry for confusion, I meant statically configured MPLS label, LSP, to be a
>logical interface. May be mplsTunnel (150) ifType is better for this kind 
>of
>
>interface. It is not MPLS capability configuration over an interface. It is
>new subinterface, like ATM PVC over ATM physical link. My suggestion was 
>not
>
>just gathering statistics, but use of such interface in a system as a
>regular layer 3 link.
>
>Thanks,
>Igor
>
>
> >From: "Thomas D. Nadeau" <tnadeau@cisco.com>
> >To: "Igor Achkinazi" <achkinazi@hotmail.com>
> >CC: mpls@UU.NET
> >Subject: Re: Static MPLS configuration
> >Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 12:31:19 -0500
> >
> >
> >>Does anybody use MPLS interface as a layer 3 logical interface, or
> >>subinterface (part of a physical interface), like ATM PVC or Frame Relay
> >>DLCI, with its own entry in ifTable (mpls(166) ifType from 
>IANAifType-MIB)
> >>and IP address associated with it?
> >
> >         I know of lots of vendors that support this, as it is the 
>standard
> >model for MPLS
> >interface stacking.
> >
> >>Of course, it makes sense for static MPLS configuration of bidirectional
> >>flows.
> >
> >         It makes sense from a configuration perspective because it 
>allows
> >a manager to determine if MPLS is configured on that interface, as well 
>as
> >allows them to configure MPLS on an existing interface. It also makes 
>sense
> >from a statistical gathering perspective because stacking an MPLS 
>interface
>
> >on
> >top of another physical interface such as Ethernet allows a manager to
> >count just
> >the MPLS traffic on that interface, as opposed to the (aggregate) enet
> >traffic,
> >or anything else (IP).
> >
> >         --Tom
> >
> >
> >>I think it can be useful for multiplexing of small traffic flows onto 
>big
> >>capacity MPLS trunk. Another possible application is eliminating of
> >>complexity of forwarding adjacencies in routing protocols (LSP hierarchy
> >>draft), where simple static MPLS path can be used as actual, not virtual
> >>interface. In latter case MPLS interface can be even unnumbered, without
> >>IP address.
> >>
> >>Thanks,
> >>Igor
> >>
> >>
> >>_________________________________________________________________
> >>Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
> >
> >
> >
> >------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
> >
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.


_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com