Re: Reposting on ccamp: Clarification on RSVP Restart Procedure

[Lou Berger <lberger@movaz.com>]

At 08:46 AM 10/16/2002, Anca Zamfir wrote:



> >Hi,
> >I have a couple of questions regarding the RSVP restart procedure:
> >
> >In draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-07.txt, section 9.5.2. "Procedures
> >for the Restarting node", one of its paragraph reads:
> >"In the special case where a restarting node also has a resta(r)ting
> >downstream neighbor, a Recovery_Label object should be used instead of a
> >Suggested_Label object."
> >
> >This implies that the restarting node - N1 is able to detect that its
> >downstream neighbor -
correct.

>  N2 has also restarted, that is N1, N2 is the
> >restarting order.
> >
> >For the LSPs established from N2 to N1,


> since N2 cannot detect that N1 has
> >restarted, N2 will send Path messages using the Suggested Label.
This statement is incorrect. Please reread section 9.5.2 second paragraph.

> >In this case N1 will not be able to differentiate the case where this
> >message is a new Path message sent with Suggested Label or a Path message
> >for an old LSP for which recovery happens. Is N1 expected to handle the
> >two cases in the same way? If yes, why was the Recovery Label "invented"
> >and why wasn't the Suggested Label considered good for the RSVP restart
> >procedure?
> >
Please refer to section 9.5.2.  It clearly states what N1 is to do in this 
case.

Lou

> >Thanks,
> >Anca