The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2006-Jun> msg00098



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

[mpls] Reg: One clarification needed reg RFC 3209 on the scope ofTunnel ID

  • From: "Dutta, Pranjal" <pdutta@riverstonenet.com>
  • Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 12:29:45 +0530
  • Thread-Index: AcaUNx0ARcpl25W6S8KQ9VhvmEn7aw==
  • Thread-Topic: Reg: One clarification needed reg RFC 3209 on the scope ofTunnel ID

Hi All,

           RFC 3209 states regarding uniquely identifying a LSP Tunnel as follows:

 

“A tunnel ID is part of the SESSION object.
   The SESSION object uniquely defines a traffic engineered tunnel.  The
 
 
 
Awduche, et al.             Standards Track                     [Page 7]
 
RFC 3209           Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels      December 2001
 
 
   SENDER_TEMPLATE and FILTER_SPEC objects carry an LSP ID.  The
   SENDER_TEMPLATE (or FILTER_SPEC) object together with the SESSION
   object uniquely identifies an LSP tunnel”
 
So at the ingress LSR, a Session Object is identified with Tunnel ID, Dst IPV4/IPV6 Address of the Tunnel and Ext Tunnel ID (which can be set to source address). That means both tunnel_id and dst_addr uniquely identifies a LSP tunnel.
 
With respect to an ingress LSR does that mean that tunnel_id is specific to one particular destination and the same tunnel_id may be used for
another tunnel (originating at the same LSR) that goes to diff. destination?
 
Info on this would be of great help.
 
Thanks in advance,
Pranjal
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls