The MPLS WG Archive

["Vijayanand C - CTD, Chennai." <vijayc@ctd.hcltech.com>]

In this scenario there is only one TE tunnel , ie the outer tunnel across R1
to R3. Three vanilla LSPs use it to tunnel flows across R1 to R3. ( hope I
understood the problem right).

Hence , it would be appropriate to have 3 XC entries( pointed from their
respective FTN entries) corresponding to each vanilla LSP with the tunnel
label in their label stacks.

Also, I think there should be only one tunnel entry corresponding to the TE
tunnel.

Thanks and Regards
Vijay

"Where protocols are a passion, MPLS is a religion "

-----Original Message-----
From: Zhu, Rupert [mailto:rupert.zhu@santera.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 6:01 AM
To: Yuan Gu; Roberto.Guglielmi@alcatel.it; mpls@UU.NET
Subject: RE: TE MIB - LSR MIB integration


Roberto, Yuan:

Interesting scenario.  I agree on Yuan's approach, if you
insist on mapping the 3 LSPs into one TE tunnel.
However, why should we choose to map the 3 LSPs to
the same tunnel?

The application described is to have 3 flows carried in 3 LSPs,
respectively.  Since there is no logical relationships between
the 3 LSPs, (e.g., load sharing, backup, etc.), it seems more
appropriate to model them as 3 independent entities.

Alternative Solution #1:  Map to 3 LSPs directly.

    -- Populate 3 entries in mplsFTNTable (in MPLS-FTN-MIB).
       Have each mplsFTNActionType=redirectLSP.
       Have each mplsFTNActionPointer pointing to one
       of the 3 mplsXCEntry.

Alternative Solution #2:  Map to 3 tunnels (instead of one).

    -- Populate 3 entries in mplsFTNTable (in MPLS-FTN-MIB).
    -- Populate 3 entries in mplsTunnelTable, each representing
       a distinct (logical) tunnel.  (That is, they have different
       values in mplsTunnelIndex.)
    -- Have each mplsFTNActionType=redirectTunnel.
       Have each mplsFTNActionPointer pointing to one of
       the 3 mplsTunnelEntry.

In other words, if there is no relationship between the 3 LSPs,
then they do not belong to the same TE tunnel.

My two cents.

-- Rupert


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yuan Gu [mailto:yuangu@ipinfusion.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 2:12 PM
> To: Roberto.Guglielmi@alcatel.it; mpls@UU.NET
> Subject: RE: TE MIB - LSR MIB integration
> 
> 
> Hello, Roberto:
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-mpls@UU.NET [mailto:owner-mpls@UU.NET]On Behalf Of
> > Roberto.Guglielmi@alcatel.it
> > Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 3:19 AM
> > To: mpls@UU.NET
> > Subject: TE MIB - LSR MIB integration
> >
> >
> > Hello everybody,
> > I have a doubt about interactions between LSR MIB and TE 
> MIB for what
> > concerning LSPs nested in TE tunnels.
> > Consider the following scenario:
> >
> > R1 -------- R2 -------- R3
> >
> > and suppose, for example, I have three incoming flows. I 
> want to insert
> > each flow in one LSP and tunnel the three LSPs in one TE tunnel.
> > My questions are:
> >
> > 1) How are the three LSPs mapped on the same TE tunnel?
> 
> There will be 3 entries in mplsTunnelTable. Each entry has different
> mplsTuunnelInstance.
> 
> The mplsTunnelInstance "Uniquely identifies an instance of a 
> tunnel. It is
> useful to identify multiple instances of tunnels for the 
> purposes of backup
> and parallel tunnels."
> You may want to put your LSPID into this field.
> 
> >
> > 2) Is there only one entry in the mplsTunnelTable pointing 
> to one entry
> > in the mplsXCTable?
> 
> There will be 3 corresponding entries in mplsXCTable. Each entry has
> different mplsXCLspId (RSVP-TE or CR-LDP).
> 
> 
>