Re: TE MIB (-06.txt) : tunnel instance

[Sonam Thapa <aos824@yahoo.com>]

Tom,

Thank you for your reply. I understand what you
are saying and agree that this could be useful.

However, if 2 tunnels have the same <ingress, egress> 
but different instance ids, 2 questions come to
mind -
a) MUST they have the same TunnelIndex?
b) Besides Ifindexes, does this save anything else
   at the egress or the ingress over 2 regular
   tunnels between the same <ingress, egress>
   assuming one regular LSP is backing up another
   and is pre-signalled. Seems to me that this is
   equivalent to having tunnels with multiple
   instances.

Did I get it wrong?

TIA,
-aos

--- "Thomas D. Nadeau" <tnadeau@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> >I am a bit confused by the mplsTunnelInstance
> >parameter in the MIB. Should each tunnel not have
> >its own name, index etc, even if it has the same
> >parameters as another tunnel. If this is so,
> >mplsTunnelInstance is not needed right?
> >
> >Or does current equipment support such "multiple"
> >instances of the tunnel? If so what advantages
> >does it have over 2 tunnels which differ in the
> >index and name fields.
> 
>          This is useful for several reasons. First,
> it allows pre-signalled back-up tunnels to be
> displayed. They will appear as different instances
> of the same tunnel. You can also use alternate
> instances of the tunnel to have different
> constraints (paths, etc...) which can be chosen
> in the event that the primary path fails and
> is rerouted. Finally, you can also have parallel
> tunnels. Some implementations allow multiple
> instances of
> the same tunnel to be signaled and used in parallel,
> but appear as the same tunnel interface.
> 
>          --Tom
> 
> 
> 



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more.
http://buzz.yahoo.com/