Re: Bi-directional LSPs Incompatibility

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

Hi Eric,
          I was going through the OIF Signallng working group mail
archive. I found one mail related to making the RESVCONF message
mandatory. There were mails exchanged in OIF on 2nd July related to
this thread. Fong Liaw mentioned some advantages of keeping the
RESVCONF message.
Fong stated the following text :
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"One reason for not pre-program the cross-connect in the forward
direction is to prevent misbehaved (destination) client taking
advantages of the pre-programmed cross-connect, send traffic
and then reject the connection to avoid billing. This was a big
problem for voice calls and I also heard Curtis raised the concern of
pre-programming at one of the OIF meeting."

p.s. The ResvConf message is really an advisory message. There
are other ways to find out if the cross-connect has been programmed
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Even Osama Aboul-Magd of Nortel has agreed to put this type of 3-way
handshake in LDP. Osama defined new status code "reservation confirmed"
in the notification message.
So, I think it will not going to be removed. So, probably GMPLS has to
add this in the new revision.

Please comment.

Regards,
manoj.


>From: Eric Gray <eric.gray@sandburst.com>
>To: manoj juneja <manojkumarjuneja@hotmail.com>
>CC: swallow@cisco.com, ccamp@ops.ietf.org
>Subject: Re: Bi-directional LSPs Incompatibility
>Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 10:58:02 -0400
>
>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
>
>


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