The MPLS WG Archive

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

I am not stating that PHP is used in GMPLS. I am just stating that using unsolicited mappings in Dod Ord scenarios is not advisable. If unsolicited mappings were allowed for this PHP problem it would encourage application to similar problems.It would allow the flexibility for LSRs to change labels allocated unsolicitedly in a strictly Dod Ord domain.

 

Please correct me if I am wrong

 

Regards,

Vijay

-----Original Message-----
From: neil.2.harrison@bt.com [mailto:neil.2.harrison@bt.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 3:29 PM
To: vijayc@ctd.hcltech.com; kannan.babu.ramia@intel.com
Cc: mpls@UU.NET
Subject: RE: Clarification on Handling a specific event in LDP

2 questions....please see below.  regards Neil

-----Original Message-----
From: Vijayanand C - CTD, Chennai. [mailto:vijayc@ctd.hcltech.com]
Sent: 18 September 2002 10:19
To: Ramia, Kannan Babu
Cc: mpls@UU.NET
Subject: RE: Clarification on Handling a specific event in LDP

Again you are overriding the Dod Ord control by using a label map along with a withdraw whereby  it becomes an unsolicited mapping.

Apart from the Question of syntactical correctness of sending an unsolicited label map there is another problem.

 The domain in configured for Dod Ord. THis may be due to constraints in the switches to install labels. For example, in GMPLS, the set of desired labels is sent along with the request indicating the range of labels the upstream can switch onto. Hence the Dod Ord control has significance in such scenarios' and overriding it may cause confusion. 

NH=> How does PHP work with GMPLS? 

 

The issue of change in next hop for an FEC right at the egress( which is usually egress for routing domain) is a very rare situation and I think it does nt warrant drastic changes to the semantics and operation of LDP 

NH=> If you stopped using PHP would this problem not 'go away'?

<snipped to end NH>