[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Addressing doc
Some comments/question on the ID.
First all think that this work is very useful in order to understand how
the different implementation of GMPLS interpret the ID/RFC.
I'd like to have, if it is possible, an explanation of the incoming and
outgoing terms, my understanding of that terms is the following one.
+-------+ +-------+
| | Path--> | |
| |=====================| |=============
| | /| |\
+-------+ / +-------+ \
Incoming/ \OutGoing
I understood from the Lyndon mail that the ID is the result of the ISOCORE
tests, my question, w.r.t. the ERO processing, is: TNEs that implements
option 3 are able to interoperate with TNE that implements option 4? More
generally was possible to have interworking between the variuos options?
What exactly means the term encapsulating in the following sentence
(section 4.0)
"...
Mandating that TE Router ID be a reachable IP address eliminates the need
of the mentioned above module ? next hop data
plane TE Router ID could be used as a destination for IP packets
encapsulating the LSP setup (RSVP Path) message.
..."
Moreover my understunding is that LMP can be the module that manages, on a
hop by-hop basis of course, control plane/data plane address binding; why
LMP is not referenced by the ID? IMHO LMP is an important part of the
GMPLS protocols suite.
Regards
Diego