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

[Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>]

Steve,

> Hi Ed,
> 
> I agree, comments below.
> 
> Regards,
> steve atkinson
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Edward Harrison [mailto:eph@dataconnection.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 11:06 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)?
> > > 
> > > I am proposing to remove the COMPONENT_IF_UPSTREAM.
> > 
> > In this case, am I right in thinking it makes sense to remove
> > COMPONENT_IF_DOWNSTREAM too, and signal the (single) 
> > component interface
> > identifier, in the IPv4, IPv6 or IF_INDEX TLV?
> 
> This is how I felt it should work. I don't see any additional
> value in COMPONENT_IF_DOWNSTREAM that can't be handled by
> the IF_INDEX TLV. Both carry the same information, the
> unnumbered interface identifier.

I completely agree with the suggestion to remove both
COMPONENT_IF_DOWNSTREAM and COMPONENT_IF_UPSTREAM, and use IF_INDEX
TLV instead (for both bunlded and/or unnumbered links).

Yakov.