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

[Zhi-Wei Lin <zwlin@lucent.com>]

Hi,

To further the discussion, would it be possible to add a new flag for 
purpose of identifying whether or not a connection (secondary 
connection) can support extra traffic. A 1:1 connection should be able 
to support extra traffic (if secondary is not used) while a 1+1 would 
not support extra traffic.

Also, we may want to add a flag for whether or not a protection is 
revertive.

Also, current "link flags" is assumed to provide link protection. Maybe 
we can add a new flag for either "link" or "path" protection.

So the total is three new flags using 3 bits, out of the current 25 
reserved bits.

What do you think?
Zhi


John Drake wrote:

> 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.
> 
>