RE: Question about gmpls-recovery-terminology draft

[takao.okamawari@bt.com]

Dimitri, 

Thank you for your answer. I found a similar explanation in 5.4.1 of 
the gmpls-recovery-analysis draft as well. Could you tell me how those
drafts 
(recovery-analysis, recovery-functional and recovery-terminology) interacts
each other?

Takao


On Thursday, February 20, 2003 1:51 PM, Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be
[SMTP:Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be] wrote:
> hi,
> 
> normally in section 7 "restoration schemes"
> which will be completed once other i-d's 
> are finalized - note that more description 
> of this can be found in section 3.3 of
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-
> functional-00.txt
> 
> thanks,
> - dimitri.
> 
> takao.okamawari@bt.com wrote:
> > 
> > Think about the following scenario.
> > 
> > A  *-------------* B
> >    |             |
> > C  *-------------* D
> >    |             |
> > E  *-------------* F
> > 
> > Two working paths are established between A-B and E-F.
> > The protection path for A-B is A-C-D-B.
> > The protection path for E-F is E-C-D-F.
> > Since the two working paths are disjointed,
> > the protection resource between C and D is common,
> > i.e. shared by two working paths.
> > 
> > My question is where does this protection/restoration method
> > fit in the gmpls-recovery-terminology document?
> > 
> > Takao
> 
> -- 
> 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: Fr. Wellesplein 1, B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium
> Phone  : Work: +32 3 2408491 - Home: +32 2 3434361