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

[Abhimanyu Das <adas@mahinetworks.com>]

Hi,
 I agree with Ed that it does make sense to keep both the
COMPONENT_IF_UPSTREAM and COMPONENT_IF_DOWNSTREAM objects..since in bundled
links, one should allow for the flexibility of using different interfaces
for upstream and downstream LSPs.
In fact, it seems bundling is the only case where you can allow for this
flexibility of choosing different interfaces for upstream and downstream
LSPs because you have a choice of selecting a transmitter on one link and a
receiver on another link within the same bundle. In  non-bundled
cases(numbered or unnumbered), the link receiver and transmitter is combined
within a single interface..so one seems  forced in practice to use the same
interface for both upstream and downstream directions.

Abhimanyu

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Edward Harrison [mailto:eph@dataconnection.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 2:56 AM
> To: 'Yakov Rekhter'
> Cc: Nic Larkin; 'ccamp@ops.ietf.org'
> Subject: RE: FW: Questions on draft-ietf-mpls-bundle-00 
> 
> 
> 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.
>