Re: FW: Questions on draft-ietf-mpls-bundle-00

[Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>]

Stephen,

> I didn't get any comments on this. Would anyone care to 
> respond?

Sorry for the delay... comments below....

> Thanks,
> steve atkinson
> 
> >  -----Original Message-----
> > From: 	Atkinson, Stephen  
> > Sent:	Monday, September 10, 2001 4:11 PM
> > To:	ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> > Subject:	Questions on draft-ietf-mpls-bundle-00
> > 
> > I've been reading the draft-ietf-mpls-bundle-00 spec and have 
> > a couple questions.
> > 
> > Basically I'm trying to focus on why signaling unnumbered 
> > components using
> > Explicit Indication by Interface ID is different from all 
> > other cases. This being the
> > only case which specifies an interface (component) for each 
> > direction of a bi-directional LSP.

My suggestion would be to make signaling unnumbered components
using Explicit Indication by Interface ID the same as all other
cases. That is, when signaling unnumbered components using
Explicit Indication the signaling would carry just *one*
Interface ID, and this Interface ID would identify the component
link that should be used in *both* directions.

Yakov.