LMP Doubt

[S Ramesh <rashanmu@npd.hcltech.com>]

Hi,

Can anybody explain me the need of Interface id to be of type IPv4, v6
and unnnumbered. Why do we need this kind of classification to a number
which is assigned to a port or component link.

In the case of Neighbour discovery, it is going to be used to find the
data plane connectivity and verify it. Just a 32 bit number is enough
for that right. Why do we need a classification with different C-Types
for this interface id.  But the Test messages also in most of the cases
it is IP encapsulated, i dont think we need to use this Interface ID as
the destination IP address for the Test messages, because this is unique
Node-wide only. If so we can use the Node ID as the destination IP
address ( since data links are directly connected ) and send the Test
message which contains the Interface ID.

Also in OIF UNI 1.0 agreement, in Service Discovery messages, they use
Interface ID as 32bit number ( may be IPv4 or un numbered ). For other
Interface ID related messages which are used in Verification procedure,
they
refered IETF LMP draft.

At this point of time am putting Kireeti's  comments on a discussion
like this

"I see that the OIF UNI comes up over and over.  The OIF UNI is *NOT*
specified by CCAMP; hence "required by OIF OUNI" has little official
meaning to CCAMP. However, if what the OIF UNI needs comes for free (as
in this case), that's fine."

Am accepting the point , but however, i could not understand the reasons
for the extensions to such a classification with 3 C-Types for Interface
ID. If it is functionality wise required for a protocol in future means
its upto the OIF to upgrade or  we can know the specific reason for
making a difference ( which i could not understand the usage or future
use of those classication ) from OIF UNI which "comes for free"
otherwise. Kindly explain on this regard.

Thanks,
Ramesh