Re: [mpls] Identifier Semantics [Re: working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-p2mp-05.txt]

[Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>]

Dimitri,

[clipped...]

> > now there is a more fundamental issue: what is the purpose of the initial
> > comment, i think it is first to clarify  processing of Tunnel ID and
> > Extended Tunnel ID but i don't think i have seen any specific issue in
> > keeping usage of the Tunnel ID & Extended Tunnel ID per RFC 3209/3473

The purpose of the initial comment is to clarify the definition
of P2MP ID.

The current spec said the following (Section 19.1.1):

 P2MP ID

      A 32-bit identifier used in the SESSION object that remains
      constant over the life of the P2MP tunnel. It encodes the
      P2MP ID and identifies the set of destinations of the P2MP
      Tunnel.

What is the uniqueness scope of this 32 bit identifier ? Is it the
root node scope, or a global scope ?

At the minimum the spec should spell out support for the root node 
uniqueness scope.

If some folks want the spec to support global scope, then it has
to be an option (in which case the root node scope will be another
option), *and* the spec has to spell out the procedures for assigining
such globally unique P2MP IDs (in the absence of such procedures
the spec should just have the root node uniqueness scope).

Yakov.