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

[Edward Harrison <eph@dataconnection.com>]

Yakov,

draft-ietf-mpls-bundle-01.txt clearly states that only TLVs of types 1
(IPv4), 2(IPv6) or 3(IF_INDEX) are to be used in the IF_ID object (when
dealing with component links).  However, types 4 & 5 (the COMPONENT_IF_*
types) are still defined in the new GMPLS draft
(draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-07.txt).

Should they have been retired from this latest revision of the generalized
signaling draft?

Also, draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-06.txt specifies that, for
component links, it is still possible to specify distinct downstream and
upstream component data channels:

   ...In the special case where a
   bidirectional LSP that traverses a bundled link, it is possible to
   specify a downstream data channel that differs from the upstream data
   channel. 

If one shouldn't use the COMPONENT_IF_DOWNSTREAM and COMPONENT_IF_UPSTREAM
TLVs, then presumably one would have two TLVs in the IF_ID hop object.  Is
there a convention which says which TLV refers to the downstream and which
the upstream direction?

Cheers,

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: 29 November 2001 19:06
To: Karmakar, Soumen
Cc: 'ccamp@ops.ietf.org'
Subject: Re: FW: Questions on draft-ietf-mpls-bundle-00 


Soumen,

> Was there a decision taken on this and reflected in drafts (or to come) of
> the removal of COMPONENT_IF_UPSTREAM ? Or that the type is supported and
may
> not be used. The UNI specifications mandates that both upstream and
> downstream component id must be specified for bidirectional connection.
Will
> these also be reflected in the OUNI (oif2000.125.7) specification ?

see draft-ietf-mpls-bundle-01.txt

Yakov.