From: Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 8:23 AM To: Xuxiaohu Cc: Eric C Rosen; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [mpls] Clarification on the motivation of draft-xu-spring-islands-connection-over-ip-05
On Apr 7, 2016, at 6:39 PM, Xuxiaohu <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On 4/6/2016 11:37 AM, Xuxiaohu wrote: The situation in MPLS-SR is a little bit complex since the outgoing label for a given /32 or /128 prefix FEC could be learnt either from the IGP next-hop of that FEC or the originator of that FEC due to the IGP flooding property. In the former case, the IGP next-hop for a given FEC is taken as the next-hop of the received MPLS packet belonging to that FEC; in the latter case, the originator of that FEC is taken as the next-hop of the MPLS packet belonging to that FEC ... the latter case belongs to the "remote label distribution peer" case as defined in RFC3031 I don't believe this is correct. In SR, the fact that label L was advertised by node N does not imply that a packet with L at the top of the stack needs to be tunneled to N. In the typical case, the packet [Xiaohu] The FEC associated the above label L is the /32 or 128/ prefix of node N. When the IGP next-hop towards that FEC is a non-MPLS node, the LSR receiving the above MPLS packet with top label of L is desired to forward that MPLS packet towards node N via an IP-based tunnel. In this case, the node N is the remote peer for that FEC. Is this really a “remote label distribution peer”? Or a local one by way of the forwarding adjacency of an IP Tunnel as a logical MPLS-enabled interface (towards N or bypassing the old router)? [Xiaohu] what’s the difference between the above two? Best regards, Xiaohu Thanks, — Carlos. Best regards, Xiaohu
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
