Re: draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-p2mp-06.txt [P2MP ID]

[Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>]

Lou,

> 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?

Are you saying that the only reason we have to use Tunnel ID as
part of a p2mp tunnel identifier is because Tunnel ID is used as
part of a p2p tunnel identifier ?

Yakov.