Subject: RE: Unnumbered links in non-GMPLS scenario

From: "Naidu, Venkata" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 15:10:54 -0500

Ania:

-> > 2) How LSRs can exchange local ids assigned to their unnumbered
-> > not using LMP ? In my opinion, OSPF is unsufficient because it does
-> > not allow to match identifiers assigned to many parallel unnumbered
-> > links (i.e. connecting the same two LSRs).
-> 
-> I think that saying that OSPF is "unsufficient" may be a bit strong.
-> It would be fair to say though that we don't have yet an OSPF
-> mechanism to do this. But it doesn't mean that such a mechanism
-> can't exist - it means that we just haven't specified it.

  If you are too concerned about mapping Local and Remote IF_IDs
  in multiple parallel unnumbered link case with out implementing
  LMP is by allowing user to specify them in the Interface 
  configuration phase. So that you can map IF_IDs unambiguously.

  This is by far the best with out depending on protocols (like LMP or
  OSPF etc) 

--Venkata Naidu

This e-mail and any attachments are confidential. If you are not the
intended recipient, please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then
delete this message from your system. Do not copy this e-mail or any
attachment, use the contents for any purposes, or disclose the contents to
any other person: to do so could be a breach of confidence.

---

From: senthil venkatachalam <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 00:46:37 -0500

>   This is by far the best with out depending on protocols (like LMP or

Unfortunately remote nodes won't be able to know the mapping if
it is only statically configured.