Hi, I think that problem here is that two LSPs are two independent unidirectional links, rather than one bidirectional. Moreover, LSPs in two directions are not pairs (some two LSPs are not associated to each other), and amount of LSPs in each direction is not necessary the same. I could assume that some router uses Interface IDs for two-way check, but it is not so straightforward when we have deal with FAs.
Acee, two-way check could be disabled on the router that is owner of FA, but how other routers will distinguish regular P2P from FA? Thank you. Best regards, Alexander Okonnikov 1 марта 2018 г., 19:37 +0300, Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com>, писал: > Hi Dirk, > > My memory has faded somewhat on Forwarding Adjacency (FA) implementation. > However, since basic MPLS LSPs are unidirectional, doesn’t the SPF two-way > check have to be disabled anyway? If so, the Remote Interface ID doesn’t > matter. > > Thanks, > Acee > > From: Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of "Goethals, Dirk (Nokia - > BE/Antwerp)" <dirk.goeth...@nokia.com> > Date: Thursday, March 1, 2018 at 11:06 AM > To: "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org> > Subject: [Lsr] advertising tunnels in IGP > > Hi, > In OSPFv2 (and ISIS), we can add (RSVP) tunnels to the topology > by adding them as a unnumbered link in the router lsa. > In OSPFv3, we can only add a link to the router-lsa if the neighbor > interface ID is known. > So it looks like we can only add a tunnel to the OSPFv3 topology, > if we first exchanging hello packets over the tunnel. > Is that correct? > As this is not needed in the other IGPs, do > we have other possibilities? > Thx, > Dirk > > > > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > Lsr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
