The MPLS WG Archive

[Rahul Aggarwal <rahul@redback.com>]

Hi Jim/Vach,

[snipped]

> 
> yes and no :) I think that the way to deal with this is to add some kind of
> signaling during session setup so that two LSRs can indicate which type of
> FECs they wish to exchange .. Jim

I am not sure if this is needed to solve this case. A targeted adjacency
is used to send either VC FECs (if a pseudo wire is configured to a peer)
or for tunneling a regular LDP session (eg. for TE). Both these cases
are driven by some configuration. By default prefix FECs should not be
exchanged over a targeted session.

As far as exchanging VC FECs over a link adjancency is concerned, if two
peers are directly connected, I don't see a problem with this. Else ofcourse
one needs a targeted adjancency.

On the other hand I do agree that exchanging a session capability can be 
useful.

> 
>   I have run across some behavior that
> > >doesn't quite follow
> > >these rules, so if others are operating on other rules of
> > >behavior, could we
> > >have some discussion on how to resolve this?  Thanks.
> > >
> > >-Vach
>