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

[Rahul Aggarwal <rahul@juniper.net>]

Hi George,

On Wed, 28 Jun 2006, George Swallow wrote:

> The text below should not be changed (at least not to what has been
> proposed!)
>
>
>  >
>  > 19.2.1
>  >
>  > " IPv4 tunnel sender address
>  >             See [RFC3209]"
>  >
>  > to"
>  >
>  > "IPv4 tunnel sender address. This address MUST be the same as the address
>  > in the Extended Tunnel ID field of the SESSION object."
>  >
>  > 8.
>  >
>  > 19.2.2
>  >
>  > "IPv6 tunnel sender address
>  >            See [RFC3209]"
>  >
>  > to
>  >
>  > "IPv6 tunnel sender address. This address MUST be the same as the address
>  > in the Extended Tunnel ID field of the SESSION object."
>
> These changes bill break bypass FRR.  When a node want to establish a
> fast reroute LSP that merges back in over a bypass tunnel, the Sender
> address is set to its own IP address (which in most cases would be some
> midpoint node).
>

Agreed.

rahul

> Further i think that we should only RECOMMEND that the Extended tunnel
> ID be used to carry the tunnel headend address.  So we couldn't say MUST
> here anyway.
>
> ...George
>
> ========================================================================
> George Swallow             Cisco Systems                  (978) 936-1398
>                            1414 Massachusetts Avenue
>                            Boxborough, MA 01719
>