[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
At 13:48 07.06.2000 -0400, Thomas D. Nadeau wrote:
> That is a good point. What I can say then is that ONLY v4 and
>v6 IP addresses are allowed.
>>Again, why does a DNS name not work?
> Because MPLS/RSVP does not use DNS names to
>DNS names to signal MPLS tunnels.
[just sticking my head in]
Note that a syntax definition can never capture ALL the semantic
restrictions on objects.
In this case, it's unrealistic to expect the MIB syntax to catch the idea
that both ends of an MPLS tunnel use the same IP address family, or that
it's unrealistic to expect to use 127.0.0.1 (localhost) as one end of a tunnel.
Or, since global uniqueness is required, 10.x.x.x addresses.
Given requirements for IPv6 rapid renumbering, it's not even completely
unthinkable that a future version of MPLS will use GUIDs or DNS names for
unique tunnel identifiers (I assume you're replacing MplsTunnelCookie from
draft -05 with something that has more strict syntax?)
I'd recommend staying with comment, not syntax, saying that this value
reflects incoming data from an MPLS label, and only values that are
permitted there can be used here.
(note - using the global label as a tertiary index will not necessarily
make it simple to find an entry given that you know the MPLS label. If
that's what you want, it's better, IMHO, to keep the strictly local
indexing scheme and add a new table giving mapping from globally unique
MPLS label to tunnel table index. But since I don't fully understand draft
-05, and haven't seen the forthcoming version, I may be off base here.)
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway