The MPLS WG Archive[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index] [mpls] Re: draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-p2mp-06.txt [P2MP ID]
Lou, [since the answer to the question you posed below may benefit other folks, I added mpls and ccamp mailing list to the cc:] > Rahul, > Okay, so I'm just a bit slow. Can you explain why the > semantics of P2MP-TE needs to be different than P2P-TE? > > Yakov, > > Perhaps you should answer this? > > Lou To answer your question observe that in P2P-TE the Session object carries IPv4 tunnel end point address, while in P2MP-TE the Session object carried P2MP-ID. Here are some of the reason(s) semantics of IPv4 tunnel end point address needs to be different than P2MP-ID: 1. IPv4 tunnel end point address is a unicast address. P2MP-ID is not. 2. IPv4 tunnel end point address is suitable for hierarchical routing (e.g., CIDR). P2MP-ID is not. 3. There are well-established procedures for assigining (globally) unique unicast IP addresses. There are no such procedures for assigining (globally) unique P2MP IDs. Yakov. _______________________________________________ mpls mailing list mpls@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
|
|