Subject: A Question on LMP for unbundled links

From: "Mohammad Siddiqui" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 17:28:37 +0000

Hi:

I've a question on how the TE Link ID and Component Link/ Port IDs that 
should be assigned for unbundled links. By unbundled link, I am referring to 
the bundle (aka TE Link) that contains only ONE component Link. 
Specifically, how the two neighboring node will communicate Link Summary 
messages for the unbundled links. What should be the TE Link ID within the 
LMP Link Summary message in the unbundled case. Would TE Link Id = 0 
suffices for unbundled links? Or TE Link Id has to be a routable address or 
should be a number derived from the unnumbered space. Also, since UNI 125.6 
requires TE Link ID to be set to the TNA address, how we deal with this 
requirement for unbundled links. Can we set (local TE Link ID, component 
link ID) = (0, TNA address) for unbundled UNI interfaces?

Your reply to this question will be much appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

Regards

/Siddiqui.

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

---

From: Jonathan Lang <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 09:20:48 -0700

Siddiqui,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mohammad Siddiqui [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2001 10:29 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: A Question on LMP for unbundled links
> 
> 
> Hi:
> 
> I've a question on how the TE Link ID and Component Link Port IDs that 

> suffices for unbundled links? 
The TE Link Id would equal the Data link Id.

> Or TE Link Id has to be a routable address or 
For UNI 125.6, the TNA address is equal to the TE Link Id.

---

From: "Mohammad Siddiqui" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 00:32:34 +0000

Hi Jonathan:

Thanks a lot for your profound reply. It's much appreciated.

The follow-up question that I've is that, can we still assign a local link 
ID independently of the TE Link ID to an unbundled TE Link (A TE Link with 
only one component link)? In which case, TE Link ID will be an addressable 
entity and component link ID will be a locally assigned identifier. Do you 
think if such an assignment is made, the neighboring nodes have to implement 
link bundling support (as mentioned in draft-ietf-mpls-bundle-00.txt? Or 
there are no pit-falls associated with assigning TE link ID and component 
link ID independently, for unbundled interfaces.

Thanks in advance.

/Siddiqui

>From: Jonathan Lang <[email-masked]>
>To: 'Mohammad Siddiqui' <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
>CC: [email-masked]
>Subject: RE: A Question on LMP for unbundled links
>Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 09:20:48 -0700
>
>Siddiqui,
>
> > should be assigned for unbundled links. By unbundled link, I am 
>referring
>to