[ post by non-subscriber. with the massive amount of spam, it is easy to miss
and therefore delete posts by non-subscribers. if you wish to regularly
post from an address that is not subscribed to this mailing list, send a
message to <listname>-owner@ops.ietf.org and ask to have the alternate
address added to the list of addresses from which submissions are
automatically accepted. ]
Adrian,
The nodes along the path of the secondary LSP are not computing ERO
expansions, but are using the PPRO to determine if resources can be
booked (or overbooked).
Thanks,
Jonathan
-----Original Message-----
From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:afarrel@movaz.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 8:11 PM
To: Jonathan Lang
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Cheng-Yin Lee; stefaan.de_cnodder@alcatel.be
Subject: Re: draft-lang-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-e2e-signaling-00.txt
Thanks Jonathan,
I have one remaining point for discussion.
How close is the PPRO to the XRO in
draft-lee-ccamp-rsvp-te-exclude-route-02.txt?
It was certainly our intention that XRO should be applicable to your
specific
e2e requirements so I'd like to understand the issues with a view to
converging
the specifications.
You said...
We read the Lee draft, but it was more restrictive than we wanted
this
to be. We don't want the PPRO to be an "Exclude Route". Rather, it
is
a local policy issue how to use the PPRO.
We have an option in the XRO that says whether the exclusion is
required
or
desired. A desired exclusion is clearly a policy issue at the
computing
node.
Is there something more specific that you need?
Thanks,
Adrian