The MPLS WG Archive

[Jean Philippe Vasseur <jvasseur@cisco.com>]

Hi Stefaan,

At 17:37 01/04/2003 +0200, stefaan.de_cnodder@alcatel.be wrote:

>Hi,
>
>Why does the PLR have to know whether it is an interface
>address or a node-id? If the PLR has to select a backup
>tunnel, it scans the IP addresses in the RRO and compares
>the IP address in the RRO subobject with the tail-end of the
>backup tunnel if that IP address in the RRO cannot be
>converted to a node-id. If the IP address does not match,
>then the next RRO subobject is taken and then that one will
>match in case the MP includes an RRO subobject containing
>the node-id.

That does not work since the bypass tunnel may terminate on an interface 
non recorded in the RRO of the protected TE LSP. So what we propose here is 
just to add the node-id subobject on both TE LSPs, that's as simple as 
that. If an LSR cannot use the IGP DB, just look at the RRO IPv4 subobjects 
having the flag set.

>So I do not see a reason to have to have a flag
>to indicate that it is a node-id or not.
>I would also like to see a precise definition of "the backup
>tunnel's tail-end". Is it the destination address of the
>bypass tunnel, ...

Yes.

JP.

>regards,
>
>Stefaan
>
>
>George Swallow wrote:
> >
> > In San Francisco the workgroup showed support for making
> >
> >   Definition of an RRO node-id subobject
> >     draft-vasseur-mpls-nodeid-subobject-00.txt
> >
> > an MPLS WG Document.  This message is to solicit any further comments
> > prior to making a final determination.
> >
> > Please reply by 4/7 24:00 GMT.
> >
> > ...George
> >
> > ======================================================================
> > George Swallow          Cisco Systems                   (978) 936-1398
> >                         250 Apollo Drive
> >                         Chelmsford, Ma 01824