RE: Moving right along ... generalized-signaling-06

[John Drake <jdrake@calient.net>]

Snipped

-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Mack-Crane [mailto:Ben.Mack-Crane@tellabs.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 6:38 AM
To: Lou Berger
Cc: Kireeti Kompella; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: Moving right along ... generalized-signaling-06


> 
> >
> >7) In Protection Information it states "The resources allocated for a
> >    secondary LSP MAY be used by other LSPs until the primary LSP fails
> >    over to the secondary LSP."  This may not always be the case.  An
> >    explicit flag indicating whether or not extra traffic may use the
> >    secondary path resources is needed.
> 
> ??? This is the purpose of this bit.

This is not clear from the definition.  The bit is defined as indicating
the LSP is a secondary (or protecting) LSP and in 1+1 protection the
secondary LSP may not be used for extra traffic.

Perhaps the problem here is that protection features are being defined
before the protection framework and requirements are done.  Is this
presupposing some particular outcome of the recovery work in CAMP?

JD:  I think the definition of the bit is fine.  For both 1+1 and 1:1
protection, there would be a pair of Primary LSPs between the source
and destination, rather than a Primary and a Secondary.