[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Fwd: Comments on GMPLS signalling drafts
At 12:57 PM 12/17/2001, Kullberg, Alan wrote:
>See comments below.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Lou Berger [<mailto:email@example.com>mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> > Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 3:19 PM
> > To: manoj juneja
> > Cc: Eric.Mannie@ebone.com; email@example.com;
> > firstname.lastname@example.org
> > Subject: Re: Fwd: Comments on GMPLS signalling drafts
> > see comments inline.
> > At 09:10 PM 12/13/2001, manoj juneja wrote:
> > > >From: "manoj juneja" <email@example.com>
> > > >To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > > >Subject: Comments on GMPLS signalling drafts
> > > >Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 16:15:10 -0700
> > > >
> > > >4. For IF_ID_RSVP_HOP object, there are couple of TLVs
> > defined. What
> > > >about the Component_If_Id_Downstream/Upstream TLV ? The revised
> > > >bundling draft has removed these 2 TLVs. What about the
> > GMPLS signalling
> > > >drafts ?
> > > >
> > It's still in, see the drafts for explanations.
> From section 8.1 of draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-06.txt,
> In all cases but bundling, see [MPLS-BUNDLE], the
> upstream interface is implied by the downstream interface. For
> bundling, the path sender explicitly identifies the component
> interface used in each direction.
>The latest bundling draft (draft-ietf-mpls-bundle-01.txt) doesn't
>support this statement as far as I can tell. The bundling draft
>now specifies to use type 1, 2, or 3 in the IF_ID TLV, but never
>type 4 or 5. This is in conflict with generalized-rsvp-te-06.
>I don't think the bundle draft can be used as the reference here
>or in generalized-signaling-07, section 9.1.1, since there is a
>contradicion between the 2 drafts.
The reference is to provide context on bundling, not operation. The
reference will be dropped.