The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2001-Apr> msg00208



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]  
  [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index]

Clarifications on draft-kompella-ospf-gmpls-extensions-01

  • From: Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>
  • Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 09:38:05 -0700 (PDT)

> In draft-kompella-ospf-gmpls-extensions-01, the incoming & outgoing
> interface identifiers are 32-bits. Does this refer to the 32-bit
> "interface-ID" define in:
> 
> Draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-unnum-01
> Draft-ietf-mpls-crldp-unnum-01

If you mean, can the interface identifiers defined in the ospf and
isis documents be used in unnumbered EROs, then the answer is yes.

> I.e., do we assume that incoming & outgoing interfaces that are
> advertised by IGPs are unnumbered or they can carry IP addresses.

While one can question the utility of putting both IP addresses and
assigning unnumbered interface indices to an interface, this is not
disallowed; and an interface that has both an IP address and an
interface index may be referred to by either in an ERO.

I would expect, however, that an interface is either numbered or
unnumbered, not both.

Kireeti.