Subject: FEC Table - LDP MIB v. Packet Classifier MIB

From: Adrian Farrel <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 06:04:00 -0000

Arun wrote...

>The second issue here is that of the FEC in the LDP MIB. The proposed
>packet-classifier MIB was primarily designed for redirecting
>traffic into MPLS tunnels at the head-end. The FEC requirements
>in the LDP MIB is more like extending the FIB MIB (rfc2096?)
>with label information. The right way to address the LDP requirement
>IMHO would be to extend the FIB MIB to include label information.
>The packet-classifier does encompass this functionality in a way,
>however, I can understand the debate over the second issue.

I agree that purpose of the FEC information in the two MPLS MIBs
is different.  The Packet Classifier is concerned with data 
ingress.  The LDP MIB has to consider LSP merging and LSP
segment matching.

In my opinion it clouds the implementation to remove this information
from core of the MPLS signaling function.

You could make a case for putting the FIB in the LSR MIB, but since it
is specific to LDP that might be a shame.

Adrian
--
Adrian Farrel  mailto:[email-masked]
ATM, MPLS and Telecoms Development Group
Data Connection Ltd., Chester, UK
http://www.datcon.co.uk/
Tel: +44 (0) 1244 313440  Fax: +44 (0) 1244 312422