[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Moving right along ... generalized-signaling-06
As I understand it, discussion is closed. But to answer your questions:
1) No, it's a policy decision at the intermediate node.
2) No, revertive behavior is a policy decision at the LSP endpoints
3) No, path protection is a policy decision at the LSP endpoints
-----Original Message-----
From: Zhi-Wei Lin [mailto:zwlin@lucent.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 8:37 AM
To: John Drake
Cc: Ben Mack-Crane; Lou Berger; Kireeti Kompella; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: Moving right along ... generalized-signaling-06
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.
>
>