Hi Eric, Quick response In-line [Uma]:
-- Uma C. -----Original Message----- From: mpls [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Eric C Rosen Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 11:51 AM To: Xuxiaohu; [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [mpls] Clarification on the motivation of draft-xu-spring-islands-connection-over-ip-05 On 4/7/2016 6:39 PM, Xuxiaohu wrote: > [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. Yes, in this case, the tunnel's receive endpoint can be regarded as a remote label distribution peer of the tunnel's transmit endpoint. However, in the above case I don't think it is obvious that you want to IP-tunnel the packet to N. You might just want to tunnel it around the non-MPLS node. In that case, the tunnel's receive endpoint can still be regarded as a remote label distribution peer of the transmit endpoint, but the receive endpoint is not N. [Uma]: Sure, this can be done; if at all if there is a shortest path node towards N (supporting MPLS/SR) and if we can tunnel to that node yes, packet can be delivered to N eventually. However, this involves (additional computation/adjustment) computation by all the boarder nodes to deliver it to the shortest SR node towards N. In that case, actually I would have expected operator to put that additional node Label as the top label instead of N. If the former has to happen operator has to exercise how this should happen through a knob ..(apart from the additional work on the boarder node). _______________________________________________ mpls mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls _______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
