Subject: Clarifications on EERO-draft-akyol-mpls-exp-ero-00

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 11:22:47 -0500

Hi Bora,

In the last IETF, you presented your draft "draft-akyol-mpls-exp-ero-00"

In the presentation, you mentioned the following:

        1|---------|2       3|---------|   
---------|2 2 2 1  |---------|2 2 2 2  |
         |-------- |         |-------- |
         
ERO1: {1,2}
ERO2: {1,2,3}

EERO: { {1,2.2.2.1,2},{3,2.2.2.2,}}
Result: Clarity in definition and processing of the ERO for both
numbered and unnumbered interfaces. 

What EERO is trying to achieve?

Can you clarify on the following points mentioned in your presentation?

-Uniqueness of interface identifiers for unnumbered interfaces
-No abstract node lookup for most common EROs.
-Easy to establish a common specification of EROs across multiple vendor
implementations.

As far as I know, your comments on the router_ID were included in the
un-numbered drafts. Any relation between this and your draft?

Thanks.

----------------------------------------------------
Wesam Alanqar         Member of Technical Staff
Technology Research Group (TR)
Technology Planning & Integration Dept. (TP&I)
Sprint
9300 Metcalf Avenue, KS 66212 
Phone: 913-534-5623 Work, Fax: 913-534-3485
----------------------------------------------------