> -----Original Message----- > From: Uma Chunduri [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 5:47 AM > To: Eric C Rosen; Xuxiaohu; [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [mpls] Clarification on the motivation of > draft-xu-spring-islands-connection-over-ip-05 > > 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).
Agree with Uma. There is no need to introduce any complexity to the SPF algorithm by taking N as the remote peer. Best regards, Xiaohu > > > > > _______________________________________________ > mpls mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls _______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
