Subject: Re: (Reply)Re: clarification on "LSR ingress for FEC"

From: "Jinsuh Shin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 17:01:24 +0900

Yoshihiro Ohba,

I agree with your interpretation of LMp.12.
In case of non-meging, we have to distinguish proper LSP from others when we received a Labe Mapping message,
and it can be achieved by "Label request Message ID TLV" in Label Mapping message. 
That is good modification for handling non-merging case.

jinsuh/

-----Original Message-----
From: Yoshihiro Ohba <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>; [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
Date: Thursday, October 14, 1999 3:22 PM
Subject: Re: (Reply)Re: clarification on "LSR ingress for FEC"

>Chetan,
>
>LMp.13 should be as it is, since there is a case in which an LSR 
>receives multiple Label Mapping messages containing the same label 
>from the same peer at least when updating hop count from egress LSR.
>
>I think section A.1.2 is a little bit ambiguous about handling 
>non-merging case. For example, my interpretation of LMp.12 is like this:
>
>LMp.12  Does LSR have a previously received label mapping from MsgSource 
>        for the LSP associated with FEC and Label ?
>           If not, goto LMp.14
>
>Regards,
>Yoshihiro Ohba
>