The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2006-Jun> msg00164



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

Rahul Aggarwal: [mpls] Identifier Semantics [Re: working grouplast call on draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-p2mp-05.txt]

  • From: George Swallow <swallow@cisco.com>
  • Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 16:57:27 -0400
  • X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
  • X-IronPort-AV: i="4.06,189,1149490800"; d="scan'208"; a="30701555:sNHT21488748"
  • X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Jun 2006 20:56:25.0065 (UTC)FILETIME=[5170CD90:01C69AF5]

The text below should not be changed (at least not to what has been
proposed!)


 > 
 > 19.2.1
 > 
 > " IPv4 tunnel sender address
 >             See [RFC3209]"
 > 
 > to"
 > 
 > "IPv4 tunnel sender address. This address MUST be the same as the address
 > in the Extended Tunnel ID field of the SESSION object."
 > 
 > 8.
 > 
 > 19.2.2
 > 
 > "IPv6 tunnel sender address
 >            See [RFC3209]"
 > 
 > to
 > 
 > "IPv6 tunnel sender address. This address MUST be the same as the address
 > in the Extended Tunnel ID field of the SESSION object."

These changes bill break bypass FRR.  When a node want to establish a
fast reroute LSP that merges back in over a bypass tunnel, the Sender
address is set to its own IP address (which in most cases would be some
midpoint node).

Further i think that we should only RECOMMEND that the Extended tunnel
ID be used to carry the tunnel headend address.  So we couldn't say MUST
here anyway.

...George

========================================================================
George Swallow             Cisco Systems                  (978) 936-1398
                           1414 Massachusetts Avenue
                           Boxborough, MA 01719

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