The MPLS WG Archive

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

Mani,
Regarding the sending of path message over the tunnel, how else do you think
it can be done, given that it has to be sent transparently without creating
path state. I am not sure how its done over FA-LSPs. Is there any problem in
treating the tunnel as an IP interface for the control plane and sending
over it ?

Regards,
Vijay

-----Original Message-----
From: Manikantan Srinivasan [mailto:manis@futsoft.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 9:55 PM
To: Vijayanand C - CTD, Chennai.
Cc: mpls@uu.net; David Charlap
Subject: RE: Comments for draft-vijay-mpls-rsvpte-lspsubobject-00.txt 


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