Re: Doubt related to AdminStatus Object in GMPLS extentions to RSVP-TE

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

Hi Tom,
        I am referring to the latest GMPLS signalling drafts.


http://www.labn.net/docs/draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-05.txt
http://www.labn.net/docs/draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-04.txt
http://www.labn.net/docs/draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-cr-ldp-04.txt

Lou Berger has sent these drafts on ccamp mailing list.

Regards,
manoj.




>From: "Thomas D. Nadeau" <tnadeau@cisco.com>
>To: "manoj juneja" <manojkumarjuneja@hotmail.com>, ccamp@ops.ietf.org
>Subject: Re: Doubt related to AdminStatus Object in GMPLS extentions to  
>RSVP-TE
>Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 16:25:40 -0400
>
>
>         Which "GMPLS drafts" are you referring to?
>
>         --Tom
>
>>        I have a doubt related to recently included AdminStatus object in
>>GMPLS drafts. It states two reasons for including this object. In Ist
>>case, the usage of this object by ingress node in non-refresh path
>>message or by transit or egress node in the notify message before
>>deleting the LSP is fine. Is this to supress the alarm generation by
>>optical nodes as  loss of light will propagate faster than the tear down
>>signalling messages (Path/Resv Tear?
>>Can someone please explain me other reason to include this object in
>>PATH/RESV messages ? Is the use of this procedure only applicable prior to
>>LSP deletion ?
>>
>>Regards,
>>manoj.
>>
>>
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
>>
>


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