The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2002-Oct> msg00075



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

Comments for draft-vijay-mpls-rsvpte-lspsubobject-00.txt

  • From: "Manikantan Srinivasan" <manis@futsoft.com>
  • Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 09:24:47 -0700
  • Cc: <mpls@UU.NET>, "David Charlap" <David.Charlap@marconi.com>
  • Importance: Normal

Vijay


>
> 1) Regarding the L Bit - This could be set. For instance, if the previous
> node of the tunnel ingress is not mentioned in the ERO then the
> node before
> that can still route the path message to the tunnel ingress looking at the
> tunnel ingress address if the L bit is set.

The ERO processing for the LSP subject needs clarification. Can this
be added in your draft, how to process the ERO object in case of Strict
ERO, Loose ERO etc.,

>
> 2) Regarding the path message sent over the tunnel- I would say that the
> path message would be sent over the existing tunnel as if it were an
> interface, transparent to the intermediate nodes.It would not create path
> state in the intermediate nodes. I did nt mention it explicitly though.

Can this be explained as well. I am not sure to which FEC, this path
message (data) will be mapped to?

Because the initial tunnel/LSP is created for a specific FEC.
Can this be added in your draft?

best regards
mani