RE: No Upstream Uni-directional LSPs?

["Michael I Mandelberg(Isaac)" <mmandelberg@fwion.com>]

I have given a brief look at this draft. I think the ideas are interesting,
but more work needs to be done to make it compatible with current rsvp-te
work. One thing that is missing is a modification to the ERO object. The
current draft mandates that there is either two label subobjects, one with
the U-bit set, or else only one, without the U-bit set.

Michael Mandelberg
FirstWave SION

-----Original Message-----
From: Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be
[mailto:Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be]
Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 8:22 AM
To: MATSUURA Nobuaki
Cc: Michael I Mandelberg(Isaac); ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: No Upstream Uni-directional LSPs?


hi,

from the i-d perspective most of the content deals with
setup, it would also be good if some words concerning
the deletion can be proposed (i mean the reference to 
the method described in current gmpls signalling i-d)
and also to clarify the following paragraph wrt to the 
signalling procedure:
"If a new FA-LSP is required to be set up between the 
LSR and the other edge of the region, the LSR initiates 
the setup of a new reserve-directional FA-LSP. At the 
same time, the LSR may send the Path/Request message 
for the original reverse-directional LSP to the other 
edge of the region."

another point is as follows: we have implementations
ongoing within our community for the set of features that
are described in the common control gmpls signalling i-d's
-> therefore it would be of great interest to gather more
information on deployment/utilisation (ie experimental
i-ds) in the near future in order to be capable to assess 
what might be further considered from that persceptive 
for these i-d's - i think this may also be applied to 
other items that may come out in the same register -

thanks,
- dimitri.

MATSUURA Nobuaki wrote:
> 
> Hi Michael,
> 
> Current GMPLS specifications don't support the upstream unidirectional
LSP.
> But MPLS in principle doesn't restrict the direction of an LSP setup.
> Therefore I think it is a reasonable generalization and posted an I-D for
this matter.
> 
> Please refer,
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-matsuura-reverse-lsp-00.txt
> 
> (I'm going to revise this draft considering the discussion on the list.)
> 
> Regards,
> 
>  -Nobuaki
> 
> At 02/09/05 12:57, Michael I Mandelberg(Isaac) wrote:
> >It is my impression that GMPLS does not support unidirectional LSPs with
> >upstream data flow (at least not RSVP). Is that correct?
> >
> >Thanks
> >
> >Michael Mandelberg
> >FirstWave SION

-- 
Papadimitriou Dimitri 
E-mail : dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be 
Private: http://www.rc.bel.alcatel.be/~papadimd/index.html
E-mail : dpapadimitriou@psg.com
Public : http://psg.com/~dpapadimitriou/
Address: Alcatel - Optical NA (CTO), Fr. Wellesplein, 1 
         B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium
Phone:   Work: +32 3 2408491 - Home: +32 2 3434361