Re: Bi-directional LSPs Incompatibility

["S Kalipatnapu" <skalipat@starpower.net>]

Manoj,

MPLS Label Switched Paths are inherently uni-directional, while GMPLS lambda
swithed paths are inherently bi-directional. Given that the two approaches
in establishing/reserving resources for a path in the network need not be
strictly the same.

Regards,
--Sitaram


----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Gray" <eric.gray@sandburst.com>
To: "manoj juneja" <manojkumarjuneja@hotmail.com>
Cc: <swallow@cisco.com>; <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 10:58 AM
Subject: Re: Bi-directional LSPs Incompatibility


> Manoj ,
>
>     George's point is that strict alignment does not need to be a goal.
> If you look at the O-UNI as a user of GMPLS services, there is no
> reason to expect this user to use all available services.
>
> --
> Eric Gray
>
> You wrote:
>
> > 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
>
>
>