At 10:39 AM 7/5/2006, Yakov Rekhter wrote:
Could you please provide *technical* reason(s) that would explain why a combination of P2MP ID and Extended Tunnel ID is not sufficient ? Yakov.
Yakov,Simply, because that's the way MPLS and GMPLS is specified today and works in running code.
If you want to change something from the way it works today, i.e, in RFC3209 and 3473 (and really 2205), IMO it's incumbent on you to justify why what's there needs to be changed. The case has been made for why the session object must use a P2MP ID rather than a destination IP address. The case has not been made for changing the definition or semantics of Tunnel ID.
Can provide the justification of why we need to deviate from current specs on definition of Tunnel ID?
Lou