From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>
Organization: SEACOM
To: curtis@ipv6.occnc.com
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 21:51:42 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/2.6.37.6-24-desktop; KDE/4.6.0; i686; ; )
References: <201401141810.s0EIArai099817@maildrop2.v6ds.occnc.com>
In-Reply-To: <201401141810.s0EIArai099817@maildrop2.v6ds.occnc.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart2864094.YLMcIW7czl";
 protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201401142151.43057.mark.tinka@seacom.mu>
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp-04.txt> (Encapsulating
 MPLS in UDP) to Proposed Standard
Precedence: list
Reply-To: mark.tinka@seacom.mu

--nextPart2864094.YLMcIW7czl
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 08:10:53 PM Curtis Villamizar=20
wrote:

> You need specific configuration to create the
> mis-alignment.  You can also override an IP routing
> protocol with static routes.

Ships-in-the-night IGP operations (typically due to=20
migrations) and/or multiple paths available to an LSR/LER=20
can present a unique set of circumstances for this to brew=20
without synchronized metrics between LDP and the IGP.

> Both ISIS and OSPF have a TE metric and an IGP metric.=20
> The default AFAIK was to use the IGP metric for LDP,

This is C's way.

=46or J, there are options for this, and the default is=20
opposite to what C do.

> though if as you say J defaults to 1 and requires you to
> configure a separate LDP metric.  If so, then the LDP
> hop count TLV would not match the IGP cost.  Not a
> problem but an odd choice for default value on J's part.

I've been in situations, many years back, where this has led=20
to interesting problems (albeit, transient and/or easy to=20
detect).

Situation could be aggregavated when you tunnel LDP in RSVP.

> I'm not sure how any of this discussion changes anything
> wrt draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp.
>=20
> Is there relevance to draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp that I am
> missing?

Agree, we're now really off-topic, and maybe it's time to=20
circle back to relevance to draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp.

Cheers,

Mark.

--nextPart2864094.YLMcIW7czl
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc 
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux)
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=xMjv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--nextPart2864094.YLMcIW7czl--