RE: position of ADMIN_STATUS object in RESV message

["Saha, Sayandeb" <ssaha@netplane.com>]

Eric,
I didn't quite understand what you meant here.
Would you mind explaining this a little more.
-Sayan

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Gray [mailto:eric.gray@sandburst.com]
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 10:41 AM
To: Saha, Sayandeb
Cc: 'ccamp@ops.ietf.org'
Subject: Re: position of ADMIN_STATUS object in RESV message


Sayan,

    I may be looking at this somewhat simply, but I know of no reason why a
transit node would need to disable an SE LSP because one of the reservations
sharing the LSP at that node sets its admin status to down.  Even in the
case
where the D bit is set, this should have the effect of removing the transit
node
from the particular reservation being torn down, rather than tearing down
all
reservations sharing resources at that transit node.

You wrote:

> Hi,
> Section 10.1 of draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-05.txt describes the
> admin_status as not being a
> part of the <flow descriptor list> in the RESV message.
> This works fine for the FF style of reservation.
> But for the SE style of reservation if just one filter is taken out by
> setting the D bit in admin status,
> all others must go down because the admin_status applies for the entire
RESV
> instead of just the particular
> filter in question.
> Or for that matter if only one filter's state(LSP) is taken
administratively
> down( by setting A bit), it will now apply to all filters
> Is this intended? Or is it the optical world will never do SE style
> reservations? Am I missing something here?
> -Sayan

--
Eric Gray (mailto:eric.gray@sandburst.com)
http://www.mindspring.com/~ewgray