Subject: RE: Some comments on LDP MIB

From: Theimer Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 16:24:13 +0200

On September 07, 1999 9:58 PM, Jim Sullivan
[SMTP:[email-masked]] wrote:
> It seems to me that the LDP MIB was written for LDP working with 
> LC-ATM interfaces only.  For example notice that the index into the 
> LDP entity table is the MplsLdpEntityID, and that this value can be 
> the same for several different peers. (e.g. SHIM encoded ATM on 
> several unnumbered interfaces to different LSRs, all using 
> platform wide label space).  When you have this
> situation then there may be just one MplsLdpEntityID representing all
> the mentioned interfaces. In this case then it would not be possible 
> to configure different label distribution methods for each peer. 
> Let me know if I am missing something here, but the current LDP mib
> seems broken. 
> 
	[Theimer Thomas]  Good point. It seems to me that the LDP ID should
not be the unique index into this table, since the entries should clearly be
configurable per interface, not just per label space. So one solution could
be to add another, unique index (mplsLdpEntityIndex) to identify the
entries. Then multiple entries could have the same mplsLdpEntityID (perhaps
we should call it then mplsLdpID).

	The consequence of that would be to associate the mplsLdpEntityEntry
with the interface, rather than the label space. So, even with a single
per-platform label space, you could have one mplsLdpEntityEntry per
interface. Would that solve your problem ? 
	  
	Regards, Thomas

---

From: Bob Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Sep 1999 12:12:46 -0400

> interface. Would that solve your problem ? 

Per-interface may not be a good way to think about this since
multiple LDP peers may be accessible via a single multi-access interface.

Bob