Subject: RE: TE-MIB

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 13:36:27 -0700

Hi Adrian,

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.

regards
bhaskara

-----Original Message-----
From: Adrian Farrel [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
>
>
>