IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mpls] Question on rfc4206

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Tue, 17 May 2016 12:04 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AC9D12D880 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 May 2016 05:04:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.946
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.946 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lwBYDNyAaZey for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 May 2016 05:04:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 34B3F12D8A0 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 May 2016 05:04:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4949; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1463486672; x=1464696272; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=c4LfAERbffAQu3DWmSxQE4SgWaixaLialQ0klWRR++Q=; b=cw80kSZXFUhmRk/DKCQCwSqN8BBt/G++m1sE2qLjfP/aaoAu5sHYBJ3J WowzsrWU1Jtw+Vg6WQf86eo8kBGnabouU9cZPxbP3kVsH7BuefKAKEbfk M2cSgjjAtqtpF4iFkDhmuHPgQAYqintHcvpG5wusWXvEp9321HKTGz0v3 Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0C0AgCGCDtX/4QNJK1cgmxLgVMGrgeGb4R3AQ2BdoYRAhyBGTgUAQEBAQEBAWUnhEIBAQEEI2YCAQgEDQMBAigDAgICHxEUCQgCBAESiBUDF7F1jT0NhCcBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBHopygkOCHIJgglkFkzCESDEBjCWBeY8Zh12HZAEeAQFCg2xuhwd/AQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.26,324,1459814400"; d="scan'208,217";a="105313345"
Received: from alln-core-10.cisco.com ([173.36.13.132]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 17 May 2016 12:04:09 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-011.cisco.com (xch-rtp-011.cisco.com [64.101.220.151]) by alln-core-10.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u4HC49rt008330 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 17 May 2016 12:04:09 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-011.cisco.com (64.101.220.151) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Tue, 17 May 2016 08:04:08 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Tue, 17 May 2016 08:04:08 -0400
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: dexter i <dexter.ietf@gmail.com>, Multiprotocol Label Switching Discussion List <mpls@ietf.org>, "kireeti@juniper.net" <kireeti@juniper.net>
Thread-Topic: [mpls] Question on rfc4206
Thread-Index: AQHRsAIv1NWSxscpK0SvSPIuezxEE5+9CAUA
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 12:04:08 +0000
Message-ID: <D3607FA3.61142%acee@cisco.com>
References: <CAM9prMJy_aFt48cmCGhrD=Eu=wyBNv7morcBchj2Jwwa=9iHPw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAM9prMJy_aFt48cmCGhrD=Eu=wyBNv7morcBchj2Jwwa=9iHPw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.196]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D3607FA361142aceeciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/kPqGMjjP_SaW31jdEcDM06n1mrI>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Question on rfc4206
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 12:04:37 -0000

Hi Dexter,

The primary difference is that the RFC 4206 Forwarding Adjacency (FA) will appear as part of the IGP IP topology, the IGP TE topology, or both. Use of an IGP shortcut, as described in RFC 3906, is purely a local policy decision at the LSP head-end and only applies to the IP forwarding. The shortcut is not visible in the IP topology.

Thanks,
Acee

From: mpls <mpls-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of dexter i <dexter.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:dexter.ietf@gmail.com>>
Date: Tuesday, May 17, 2016 at 1:58 AM
To: Multiprotocol Label Switching Discussion List <mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>>, "kireeti@juniper.net<mailto:kireeti@juniper.net>" <kireeti@juniper.net<mailto:kireeti@juniper.net>>
Subject: [mpls] Question on rfc4206

Hi,

I was going through the rfc4206. It describes adding an lsp as one of
the link into IGP. Is it not similar to IGP shortcuts described in rfc3906.
what additional functionality does 4206 provide over 3906 besides it
is setup in GMPLS environment.

thanks

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email