Re: Addressing doc

Igor,
my two cents to the discussion.

In line.

Regards

Diego

Sent by: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org

To: Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be, Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>
cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org

Subject: Re: Addressing doc

Dimitri,

Suppose a controller has just received an RSVP Path
message that contains an ERO describing a path
computed on the head-end (properly modified, of
course, along the path). ERO is specified in terms of
numbered or/and unnumbered TE links (and not IP
addresses). Now the processing controller needs to
forward the message to the controller that manages
first non-local ERO sub-object. The question is what
to set as destination in the IP header of the RSVP
Path message?
[dc] What about usage of the control channel addresses? I mean having LMP running between the two nodes the TNE is able to associate one or more Control Channels to the TE Link. In other words LMP is able to provide adress tanslation between the data plane addresses (TE Link) and control plane address (Control Channels).
[CUT]

IB>> You are absolutely right. However, as I said in one of previous emails, one cannot mandate using LMP for every link in every layer (especially, in PSC layer). Hence, taking advantage of the fact that TE Rtr ID is guaranteed to be routable IP address and the fact that any link ID (numbered or unnumbered) could be always resolved into the advertising TE Rtr ID, the recommendation to set the TE Rtr ID as the destination of the IP packet with the RSVP Path message is IHMO a good one. Having said that nothing prevents, of course, from using any IP address of the controller managing the next hop (which could be known via LMP, configuration, etc.)

Igor

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com