Re: [Lsr] advertising tunnels in IGP

Hi Acee, On 01/03/18 17:36 , Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: 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.

Re: [Lsr] advertising tunnels in IGP

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

Re: [Lsr] advertising tunnels in IGP

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 on

Re: [Lsr] advertising tunnels in IGP

Peter, Indeed. Thx, Dirk Outlook voor Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36> downloaden From: Peter Psenak <ppse...@cisco.com> Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 5:21:13 PM To: Goethals, Dirk (Nokia - BE/Antwerp); lsr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Lsr] advertising tunnel

Re: [Lsr] advertising tunnels in IGP

Hi Dirk, On 01/03/18 17:05 , Dirk Goethals wrote: 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