Re: Bi-directional LSPs Incompatibility

["manoj juneja" <manojkumarjuneja@hotmail.com>]

Hi George,
            As long as both the documents are not aligned, we can say there 
is some incompatibility. I think one can argue it in both ways. Is it a 
incompatibility or a feature that GMPLS offers but UNI is unable to make use 
of it ?

Regards,
manoj.


>From: George Swallow <swallow@cisco.com>
>To: "manoj juneja" <manojkumarjuneja@hotmail.com>
>CC: ccamp@ops.ietf.org, swallow@cisco.com
>Subject: Re: Bi-directional LSPs Incompatibility
>Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 18:23:39 -0400
>
> > Hi All,
> >         There is some incompatibility in documents of OIF
> > (oif2000.125.5) and IETF (draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-03.txt)
> > related to bidirectional LSPs. OIF's O-UNI document says [docId
> > oif2000.125.5, page 93 Figure 12-1] the destination UNI-C must
> > insert a RESV_CONFIRM object in the RESV message and should wait for
> > ResvConf message before start transmitting data.
> > But, the IETF document says the terminator node process path message
> > as usual with the exception that the upstream label can immediately be
> > used to transport data traffic associated with the LSP upstream towards
> > the initiator.
> >
> > Please Help.
> >
> > Regards,
> > manoj.
>
>I don't see a problem in this case.  Having the two ends more
>constrained than the middle as to when a circuit can be considered in
>service doesn't seem to present a problem.
>
>But my personal opinion is that the RESV Conf should be optional for
>the UNI.
>
>...George
>
>==================================================================
>George Swallow       Cisco Systems                   (978) 244-8143
>                      250 Apollo Drive
>                      Chelmsford, Ma 01824

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com