Re: GMPS Unnumbered

[Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>]

Venkata,

> All GMPLS-Unnumbered:
> 
>    I have few comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-routing-00.txt
>    (applicable to draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-00.txt)
> 
>  * MPLS-TE extensions define Interface IP Address TLVs 
>    (Type 3 and 4) as length of 4N. Where N is the number of 
>    local IP addresses for that Interface.
> 
>    But in GMPLS, why can't we configure multiple "unique" 
>    Interface IDs for Unnumbered interfaces? Please allow
>    flexibility with out restricting one ID for Unnumbered Link.

What kind of problem(s) would that solve ?

>    There is no scarcity for local significant integers 
>    (unlike IP address) ;-)
> 
>  * It would be helpful, if you give more information about "why"
>    this outgoing unnumbered link ID is chosen as "unique" in the 
>    scope of LSR.
> 
>    This is because, IP (Classical) has Unnumbered links defined
>    in RFC 1812 Section 2.2.7 - which suggests to use "Router ID"
>    (MAY be one of the Routers IP addresses) as Unnumbered Link ID. 
>    So in IP context this is not a unique ID. 
> 
>    My question is, can we use the same IP configured unnumbered
>    link address for GMPLS purpose?

unnumbered link ID has to be unique in the scope of an LSR because
the LSR needs to identify a particular link (for the purpose of resource
and label allocation), and a pair of LSRs may have multiple links
between then.

Yakov.