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

[Edward Harrison <eph@dataconnection.com>]

Yakov,

Can you clarify whether you are proposing removing the COMPONENT_IF_UPSTREAM
TLV from the INTERFACE_ID hop object (or were you just saying that Steve
needn't use it if he doesn't want to)?

As far as I can see, there is no restriction in LMP, for example, that
requires data links to be grouped into upstream and downstream pairs.  The
ability to signal separate upstream and downstream links, therefore seems to
be potentially useful.

Thanks,

Ed Harrison

-----------------
Edward Harrison  mailto:eph@dataconnection.com
Network Convergence Group
Data Connection Ltd.
http://www.dataconnection.com/
Tel: +44 20 8366 1177  Fax: +44 20 8363 1468


-----Original Message-----
From: Yakov Rekhter [mailto:yakov@juniper.net]
Sent: 12 September 2001 20:56
To: Atkinson, Stephen
Cc: 'ccamp@ops.ietf.org'
Subject: Re: FW: Questions on draft-ietf-mpls-bundle-00 


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.