The MPLS WG Archive

[Apratim Mukherjee <ApratimM@netbrahma.com>]

> Hi ,
> 
> Thanks for the clarifications . But a few doubts persist ...
> >2. the object mplsTunnelIngressId is defined to be used as the
> >ExtendedTunnelId .
> 
>          Yes.
> 
> >But then where will the SenderTemplate object's
> >Sender IP address come from ?
> 
>          EgressTunnelId.
First , do you mean EgressLSRId by this ... but this could only be
IngressLSRId if anything . 

But , this is also being used as extended tunnel id , in which case it COULD
be 0 ... then isn't there an indexing problem ?

I realise that this question has been asked before but i could not find any
satisfactory conclusion to a thread that speaks about this . 
One of the promising threads ends on this note from David Charlap ( from the
archives : http://cell.onecall.net/mhonarc/mpls/2001-pr/msg00426.html)
>Then there is potential for conflict between the TE MIB and RSVP-TE
>itself. ...........
>I can only assume that the TE MIB was based upon the features of >RSVP-TE
that are commonly in use, and can not fully accomodate all of >its features.
If someone build a router that supports multipoint-to-point >LSPs using
RSVP-TE, the TE MIB will have to be updated, or that >implementation will be
unable to properly represent these kinds of LSPs >using it. 

Is this then an unresolved problem ?

Thanks ,
Apratim