[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: FW: Questions on draft-ietf-mpls-bundle-00
draft-ietf-mpls-bundle-01.txt clearly states that only TLVs of types 1
(IPv4), 2(IPv6) or 3(IF_INDEX) are to be used in the IF_ID object (when
dealing with component links). However, types 4 & 5 (the COMPONENT_IF_*
types) are still defined in the new GMPLS draft
Should they have been retired from this latest revision of the generalized
Also, draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-06.txt specifies that, for
component links, it is still possible to specify distinct downstream and
upstream component data channels:
...In the special case where a
bidirectional LSP that traverses a bundled link, it is possible to
specify a downstream data channel that differs from the upstream data
If one shouldn't use the COMPONENT_IF_DOWNSTREAM and COMPONENT_IF_UPSTREAM
TLVs, then presumably one would have two TLVs in the IF_ID hop object. Is
there a convention which says which TLV refers to the downstream and which
the upstream direction?
Edward Harrison mailto:email@example.com
Network Convergence Group
Data Connection Ltd.
Tel: +44 20 8366 1177 Fax: +44 20 8363 1468
From: Yakov Rekhter [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: 29 November 2001 19:06
To: Karmakar, Soumen
Subject: Re: FW: Questions on draft-ietf-mpls-bundle-00
> Was there a decision taken on this and reflected in drafts (or to come) of
> the removal of COMPONENT_IF_UPSTREAM ? Or that the type is supported and
> not be used. The UNI specifications mandates that both upstream and
> downstream component id must be specified for bidirectional connection.
> these also be reflected in the OUNI (oif2000.125.7) specification ?