The MPLS WG Archive

[David Charlap <david.charlap@marconi.com>]

"Lipovetsky, Sergey" wrote:
> 
> How can we say that tunnel ID is locally unique to the ingress
> node in this case?

Because RSVP has no mechanism for synchronizing tunnel IDs across the
network.  Therefore the value is, by definition, only locally unique. 
This should be obvious.

> This is true only when the extended tunnel ID is not zero.

The uniqueness of tunnel ID is not affected by the value of other fields
in the SESSION object.

You seem to be confusing the tunnel ID with the entirity of the SESSION
object.

> If the extended tunnel ID is zero, some global synchronization is
> required.

It would be a good idea, but the protocol does not provide for any
mechanism.  And RSVP will work just fine with or without said
synchronization.  Your requirement is nothing more than wishful
thinking.

> Can we say that tunnel ID is local unique to the egress node in this
> case?

I don't see what your preoccupation with this is.  You seem die-hard
determined to change the RSVP spec such that it fits the MPLS-TE MIB.

> This is different from CR-LDP, where lspid is really locally unique
> to the ingress node and does not require any synchronization.

CR-LDP doesn't allow two LSPs to share resources either, so the entire
argument is moot there.

-- David