The MPLS WG Archive

[Apratim Mukherjee <ApratimM@netbrahma.com>]

Hi Tom ,

Thanks for the clarification .
	>>But , this is also being used as extended tunnel id , in which
case it COULD
	>>be 0 ... then isn't there an indexing problem ?
	>        Why? 0 is a perfectly valid index.
What i meant here is that if extended tunnel id is 0 , then IngressLSRId is
0 (If Extended Tunnel Id is ALWAYS same as IngressLSRId). If IngressLSRId is
0 , then Sender Template ip address is 0.0.0.0  , if this is same as Ingress
LSR Id  . This is wrong since information about the sender Ip address is
absolutely essential . I  think there shoud be a separate field for Extended
Tunnel Id as this has no necessary relation with IngressLSRId . ( They only
MIGHT be same ) . 

Hope this is more clear
Thanks
Apratim

	----------
	From: 	Thomas D. Nadeau[SMTP:tnadeau@cisco.com]
	Sent: 	Monday, July 30, 2001 7:08 PM
	To: 	Apratim Mukherjee; 'mpls@UU.NET'
	Subject: 	RE: Doubts about MPLS-TE Mib

	At 07:41 PM 7/26/2001 +0530, Apratim Mukherjee wrote:
	> > 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 ?

	         Why? 0 is a perfectly valid index.

	>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 ?

	         I don't think that this is still a problem. The current
indexing
	comes right from the RSVP/CR-LDP specifications, so if there is
	a problem, those protocols will be broken too.

	         --Tom