Re: FW: path TLV & srlg TLV

[Sudheer Dharanikota <sudheer@nayna.com>]

>
>
> > (2). If we only advertise Path Information for the FA, then the SRLG
> > information of the FA
> > can be derived, just as you specified in the "LSP Hierarchy" draft, it is
> > "the union of the
> > SRLGs of the underlying TE links that make up the FA-LSP path".
> >
> > On the other hand, if we only advertise SRLG Information for the FA, then
> > the FA-LSP's path
> > information becomes opaque to all the LSRs other than the headend LSR. This
> > makes it difficult
> > for the LSR to make a routing decision with "Link", or "Node" diversity
> > requirement.
>
> while L in SRLG stands for "links", one could be quite creative
> with the usage of SRLGs, and use them not just for links, but for
> nodes as well. Doing this would allow to support both link and node
> diversity.
>

Please refer to draft-many-ccamp-srg-01.txt for more details on "SRG" usage in the

context of diversity.