The MPLS WG Archive

[Bora Akyol <akyol@pluris.com>]

We ( I partially and a few others) implemented this and this why we 
wrote the draft.

We think it makes implementation easier by removing an abstract node 
lookup and by removing any assumptions on what gets processed when: 
E.g unnumbered interfaces always refer to the egress interface coming 
out of the router.

I did not co-author this draft just for the sake of writing an internet draft.

Bora


At 1:20 AM -0500 3/1/01, Vijay Gill wrote:
>On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Kireeti Kompella wrote:
>
>>  As Yakov said, no concrete reason for adding the router ID has been
>>  given.  However, we've wasted enough time and bandwidth.  Let's put
>>  this to vote:
>>
>>  Who all think that adding a router ID to the unnumbered ERO subobject
>>  would be beneficial?  A simple yes, no or don't care, please.
>
>I would listen to what the people who are implementing this have to say on
>the subject. I particularly don't care about the bandwidth/extra bytes
>argument, but as a service provider, I do care that the people who are
>implementing this do this in the simplest way possible. It makes for
>robust code and I like robust code because getting up in the AM really
>really annoys me.
>
>So my vote ranking system would go like this ;)
>
>People who are writing this code (developers): 10x
>People who are the protocol architects: 2x
>Other people: 1x
>
>Lets hear it from the implementors:
>
>thank you
>
>/vijay