Subject: Re: rfc 3031.section3.2.again

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 13:52:21 +0530

Hi Sean!

As per my understanding, Let Ru is the upstream LSR and Rd is the downstream LSR
with respect to a binding. Then on receiving a packet(labeled/unlabeled) at Ru,
Ru calls either ILM/FTN to map the packet to the set S of NHLFEs. Whether the
packet will be routed through Rd or some other LSR in the set S, has to be
decided by the Ru. So the statement only means to say that the packet of that
FEC, received on Ru "may" be routed through Rd.

pls correct me if I am wrong.

Regards
Mohit

"Hailong Lu.sean" <[email-masked]> on 05/18/2001 01:05:56 PM

To:   "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
cc:    (bcc: Mohit Goel/HSS)

Subject:  rfc 3031.section3.2.again

Hi,all
   Sorry about this subject again.
   From the section3.2 of rfc3031:
          "To say that one node is upstream and one is downstream with respect
        to a given binding means only that a particular label represents a
        particular FEC in packets travelling from the upstream node to the
        downstream node.  This is NOT meant to imply that packets in that FEC
        would actually be routed from the upstream node to the downstream
        node"
   I can understand the first part of this section:the upstream and downstream
concepts are just meaningful when respect the binding of label and FEC.But I
can't make sure why the "routed" problem is refered particularly in the second
part of it.From my idea,in MPLS domain,after having been labeled by the ingress
MPLS node,the packets are label switched.I mean there is no routing problem.
   thanks.

sean

---

From: [email-masked] (Saurabh Shrivastava)
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 09:34:01 -0700

i think it also means that the peer to which label is being
distributed need not be a directly connected LSR