RE: Fwd: Comments on GMPLS signalling drafts

["Kullberg, Alan" <akullber@netplane.com>]

Lou,

See comments below.

Alan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@movaz.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 3:19 PM
> To: manoj juneja
> Cc: Eric.Mannie@ebone.com; dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be;
> ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Fwd: Comments on GMPLS signalling drafts
> 
> 
> see comments inline.
> 
> At 09:10 PM 12/13/2001, manoj juneja wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> > >From: "manoj juneja" <manojkumarjuneja@hotmail.com>
> > >To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> > >Subject: Comments on GMPLS signalling drafts
> > >Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 16:15:10 -0700
> > >

[snip, snip]

> > >4. For IF_ID_RSVP_HOP object, there are couple of TLVs 
> defined. What
> > >about the Component_If_Id_Downstream/Upstream TLV ? The revised
> > >bundling draft has removed these 2 TLVs. What about the 
> GMPLS signalling
> > >drafts ?
> > >
> 
> It's still in, see the drafts for explanations.

From section 8.1 of draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-06.txt,

   In all cases but bundling, see [MPLS-BUNDLE], the
   upstream interface is implied by the downstream interface.  For
   bundling, the path sender explicitly identifies the component
   interface used in each direction.

The latest bundling draft (draft-ietf-mpls-bundle-01.txt) doesn't
support this statement as far as I can tell.  The bundling draft
now specifies to use type 1, 2, or 3 in the IF_ID TLV, but never
type 4 or 5.  This is in conflict with generalized-rsvp-te-06.
I don't think the bundle draft can be used as the reference here
or in generalized-signaling-07, section 9.1.1, since there is a
contradicion between the 2 drafts.