The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2004-Jan> msg00008



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

Correction of Explicit Null specification in RFC 3032

  • From: Eric Rosen <erosen@cisco.com>
  • Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 14:39:33 -0500
  • cc: mpls@UU.NET
  • User-Agent: EMH/1.14.1 SEMI/1.14.3 (Ushinoya) FLIM/1.14.3(Unebigoryōmae) APEL/10.3 Emacs/21.3(sparc-sun-solaris2.8) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI)


Shahram> If  C has  distributed an  Explicit NUll  Label (L1)  for FEC  F (F
Shahram> presumably is a set  of IP prefixes) to B, then it  means that C is
Shahram> the egress LER for that FEC, 

Yes. 

Shahram> meaning that C wants to forward  packets destined to FEC F based on
Shahram> their IP addresses.  

No. 

One LSP could be  nested in another.  The LSP egress for  the outer LSP (the
one that  corresponds to FEC  F) would then  be an intermediate LSR  for the
inner LSP, and would forward based the label corresponding to the inner LSP.