The MPLS WG Archive

[Anca Zamfir <ancaz@cisco.com>]

Sameer,
I think you are right, currently there is no way to specify a numbered
component link in the IF-ID HOP object. Also, AFAIK the ERO is not a
mandatory object so because of this both TE Link and component link
should be specified in the IF-ID HOP.
If the following text would be added to the draft, it could IMO solve
these issues. Comments?

"Added in RFC-3471 - Section 9.1.1. or added to the bundle draft-
Proposed Changes:

Type Length Format Description
--------------------------------------------------------------------
1    8      IPv4 Addr. IPv4
2    20     IPv6 Addr. IPv6
3    12     See below IF_INDEX (Interface Index)
4    12     See below COMPONENT_IF_DOWNSTREAM (Component interface)
5    12     See below COMPONENT_IF_UPSTREAM (Component interface)
6    8     IPv4 Addr. IPv4 - DOWNSTREAM (Component interface)    ---> new
7    8     IPv4 Addr. IPv4 - UPSTREAM (Component interface)       ----> new
8   20     IPv6 Addr. IPv6 - DOWNSTREAM (Component interface)    ----> new
9   20     IPv6 Addr. IPv6 - UPSTREAM (Component interface)      ----> new

Types 1-3 are used to identify an unbundled TE Link                       ----> new
Types 3-9 are used to identify the component interfaces in the  ----> new
case of a bundled TE Link. In this case both the TE Link and     ----> new
the component interface MUST be specified."                     ----> new

This being said, maybe the authors of the bundle draft and
RFC3471 could help to answer the following:
   - are these issues valid
   - is the proposed change good
   - how could the specification be fixed

Thanks,
Anca

At 01:28 AM 3/7/2003 -0800, Sameer K wrote:

> Reposting, as I did not get any
> response.  Could
> someone please answer the question.
>
> Thanks
> - Sameer
>
> --- Sameer K <sameerdw@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Hello All,
> > 
> > From the RFC 3471 - GMPLS Signaling Functional
> > Description, Section 9.1.1, it appears that there is
> > no way for upstream node, to specify component links
> > that are numbered, in the IF-ID HOP object.
> > 
> > The TLV format for IF-ID Types 4 and 5 assumes that
> > the component link is always un-numbered.
> > 
> > Is this the way it was planned to be?.  If yes, then
> > what should IF-ID look like for numbered component
> > link (which is a valid scenario per the Link
> > Bundling
> > draft).
> > 
> > Or did I get it all wrong?
> > TIA
> > - Sameer
> > 
> > 
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
> >
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/
> > 
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/


--------------------------------------------
Anca
Zamfir                               
Public Carrier IP 
Cisco Systems,
Inc.                   
email: ancaz@cisco.com
2000 Innovation Dr.,
Kanata          tel#: (613)
254-3484 
Ontario, CANADA  K2K
3E8         fax:  (613)
254-3717