----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 11:54
AM
Subject: RE: Intra-area Crankback
Adrian
The feedback draft is intended for this type of
operation.
Feedback is best within the area crank back
is best outside
the area. We discussed all of this
with the original authors
many many times.
Crankback is a primitive from of feedback.
Don
> -----Original Message-----
>
From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:afarrel@movaz.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 11:21 AM
> To: ccamp
> Cc: Adrian Farrel; Ash,
Gerald R (Jerry); Atsushi Iwata; Norihito
> Fujita;
Simon Marshall-Unitt
> Subject: Intra-area
Crankback
>
>
> At the CCAMP meeting in Salt Lake City I
presented
>
draft-iwata-mpls-crankback-02.txt
>
> This has previously been cast as a solution to
multi-area
> problems, but of
> course it is equally useful within an area for collecting
> additional error
>
information and passing it back to repair/re-route points in
> the network.
>
> In fact, the requirements for crankback are more immediate in
> the intra-area
> case
and we would like you to consider the draft in that
> context. That the
> draft also
solves inter-area problems should be seen as an
>
additional benefit
> that can be utilized in the
future if and when multi-area
> MPLS takes
off.
>
> In summary, the
draft allows an ingress to control crankback
> by
requesting
> detailed feedback from the node that
detects the failure, and
> by selecting the
> action that can be taken within the network when failure
is
> detected/reported.
> This additional information supplements the details reported
> back (e.g. on
>
PathErr and GMPLS Notify) and allows recalculation of a path
> that avoids the
> problem.
>
> We would welcome your
comments and feedback on the need for
> crankback
both
> within and between areas, and on the
protocol extensions
> proposed in the draft.
>
> Thanks,
> Adrian
> --
> Adrian Farrel
> Movaz Networks
Inc.
> Tel: 703-847-1867
> afarrel@movaz.com
>
>
>
>