Subject: Unnumbered interface IDs in RROs

From: Nic Larkin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 17:22:14 +0100

Hi Kireeti, Yakov,

Can you help me with a query about draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-unnum-01?

Section 7 defines the unnumbered interface subobject of the Record Route
Object.  This subobject has an "Interface ID" field to identify the
unnumbered link.  

My question is: should there also be a "Router ID" field in the definition
of the Record Route subobject, as per the ERO subobject in section 6?  This
would be used to identify which LSR the unnumbered interface belongs to,
e.g. allowing the ingress to construct a strict ERO when doing LSP Pinning.

Thanks and regards,
Nic.

Nic Larkin
Network Convergence Group
Data Connection Ltd
Tel:   +44 20 8366 1177           Fax:   +44 20 8363 1533
Email: [email-masked]     Web:   http://www.dataconnection.com

---

From: Arumugam R <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 11:42:01 +0530

Hi Nic,

I think the Router ID field is unnecessary in the newly defined RRO subobject
for unnumbered interface. If you consider the processing of the new subobject
in lines with that of the label subobject mentioned in rsvp-lsp-tunnel-08 draft
the operation will be quite clear.

i.e. always the new subobject(Type 4) should be accompanied with the subobject
1 ( IPv4 Address Type 1), which states that always the address added to the
IPv4 subobject should be the Router ID.  Then the need for having an extra
field of "Router ID" is also resolved. I feel that a statement " mandatorily
the unnumbered interface ID subobject (Type 4) has to accompany IPv4 subobject
(Type 1)" will solve the purpose in the draft mpls-rsvp-unnum-01.

Regards
Arumugam R