The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2002-Oct> msg00099



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

FW: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-mpls-tc-mib-04.txt

  • From: jcucchiara@mindspring.com
  • Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 14:59:12 -0400
  • Cc: "mpls group" <mpls@UU.NET>


Hi Yuan,

At 01:56 PM 10/17/02 -0700, Yuan Gu wrote:
>
>>Although, it may be necessary to clarify this a tad, I don't
>>believe there is a conflict.  Perhaps, this description
>>should simply state:
>>For RSVP, the MplsLSPId is the "LSP ID" as defined in RFC3209.
>
>Then for RSVP-TE, what's the sense to define LSP ID in XC table? This two
>bytes LSPID can't identify an unique LSP. Don't need to mention transit
>node, even within single ingress node it's not unique right?
>

Okay, I think I see your point. 
The object does allow an operator to configure the
LSP-ID, (and show the LSPID in the transit situation).  
Also, this object is optional so doesn't need to be supported by
the agent.

Do you think this object is not worth having in this table at all,
even optionally?

 Thanks, Joan