[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Fwd: Re: Repost: RFC 3471: IF ID specification WRT component link.
Hi,
Actually, I need to make a correction. The lack of ERO does not require
the bundled TE link Id to be specified in the IF-ID HOP since the
component link id (numbered or unnumbered) is unique per node.
Thanks,
Anca
p.s. I corrected the text below
At 02:36 PM 3/7/2003 -0500, Anca Zamfir wrote:
Sameer,
I think you are right, currently there is no way to specify a numbered
component link in the IF-ID HOP object. Also, AFAIK the ERO is not a
mandatory object so because of this both TE Link and component link
should be specified in the IF-ID HOP.
If the following text would be added to the draft, it could IMO solve
these issues. Comments?
"Added in RFC-3471 - Section 9.1.1. or added to the bundle draft-
Proposed Changes:
Type Length Format Description
--------------------------------------------------------------------
1 8 IPv4 Addr. IPv4
2 20 IPv6 Addr. IPv6
3 12 See below IF_INDEX
(Interface Index)
4 12 See below
COMPONENT_IF_DOWNSTREAM (Component interface)
5 12 See below
COMPONENT_IF_UPSTREAM (Component interface)
6 8 IPv4 Addr. IPv4 -
DOWNSTREAM (Component interface) ---> new
7 8 IPv4 Addr. IPv4 - UPSTREAM
(Component interface)
----> new
8 20 IPv6 Addr. IPv6 - DOWNSTREAM
(Component interface) ----> new
9 20 IPv6 Addr. IPv6 - UPSTREAM
(Component interface) ----> new
Types 1-3 are used to identify an unbundled TE
Link
----> new
Types 3-9 are used to identify the component interfaces in the
----> new
case of a bundled TE Link.
This being said, maybe the authors of the bundle draft and
RFC3471 could help to answer the following:
- are these issues valid
- is the proposed change good
- how could the specification be fixed
Thanks,
Anca
At 01:28 AM 3/7/2003 -0800, Sameer K wrote:
Reposting, as I did not get any
response. Could
someone please answer the question.
Thanks
- Sameer
--- Sameer K <sameerdw@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> From the RFC 3471 - GMPLS Signaling Functional
> Description, Section 9.1.1, it appears that there is
> no way for upstream node, to specify component links
> that are numbered, in the IF-ID HOP object.
>
> The TLV format for IF-ID Types 4 and 5 assumes that
> the component link is always un-numbered.
>
> Is this the way it was planned to be?. If yes, then
> what should IF-ID look like for numbered component
> link (which is a valid scenario per the Link
> Bundling
> draft).
>
> Or did I get it all wrong?
> TIA
> - Sameer
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
>
http://taxes.yahoo.com/
>
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/
--------------------------------------------
Anca
Zamfir
Public Carrier IP
Cisco Systems,
Inc.
email: ancaz@cisco.com
2000 Innovation Dr.,
Kanata tel#: (613)
254-3484
Ontario, CANADA K2K
3E8 fax: (613)
254-3717
--------------------------------------------
Anca
Zamfir
Public Carrier IP
Cisco Systems,
Inc.
email: ancaz@cisco.com
2000 Innovation Dr.,
Kanata tel#: (613)
254-3484
Ontario, CANADA K2K
3E8 fax: (613)
254-3717