Subject: RE: TE-MIB

From: "Thomas D. Nadeau" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 17:00:23 -0400

Hi Bhaskara,

>It would be more informative if Label value is also added in the 
>ArHopTable of GMPLS-TE-MIB.
>And in the bi-directional case, eventhough it may follow the same reverse 
>route,
>but, one can not gaurantee the same label values...so, thought should be 
>given
>in this respect before finalyzing the extensions.

         Yes, that is a good point. We have been
going around with the various options related to
the GMPLS-TE-MIB and how to best support GMPLS-TE
while remaining backwards compatible with MPLS
"classic" for several months now. We will present
our options during the meeting next week and to the
list shortly. If you have further thoughts on this,
please send them to us and/or come to the meeting
next week to  discuss them there during the
GMPLS-TE-MIB time slot in CCAMP.

         --Tom

>regards
>bhaskara
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Adrian Farrel [<mailto:[email-masked]>mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 12:57 PM
>To: [email-masked]
>Cc: [email-masked]; Thomas D. Nadeau
>Subject: Re: TE-MIB
>
>Incidentally,
>In GMPLS, bi-directional tunnels use the same route (in opposite 
>directions) so
>the ARHopTable will apply perfectly well.
>As Tom says, the GMPLS TE MIB (come to the ccamp meeting and hear about 
>it) will
>support the GMPLS extensions.  For bi-directional LSPs the interesting 
>point (in
>this respect) will be additional features of the RRO such as label 
>recording for
>both directions.
>
>Adrian
>--
>Adrian Farrel
>Movaz Networks Inc.
>[email-masked]
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Thomas D. Nadeau" <[email-masked]>
>To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
>Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 3:01 PM
>Subject: Re: TE-MIB
>
> >
> > >The mplsTunnelARHopTable of TE-MIB does give you
> > >the actual hops traversed by the tunnel in one
> > >direction.  But, if the LSP is a bi-directional one
> > >how would we get/record the actual hops traversed in
> > >the other direction?
> >
> >          Boy, it is good to see all of this interest
> > in the MPLS-TE-MIB these days. Gives me the
> > impression that a lot of folks are implementing
> > it. 8)
> >
> >          Bi-directional tunnels are not supported
> > in the MIB as they were not standardized in MPLS.
> > They are in GMPLS however, and will be covered
> > in the GMPLS-TE-MIB.
> >
> >          --Tom
> >
> >
> >