RE: draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-09.txt

[Nurit Sprecher <nurit.sprecher@SeabridgeNetworks.com>]

Hi Kireeti,
Thanks for responding me.
You say: "If the BE LSPs require zero bandwidth, then I don't see a reason
to prevent them being set up".
My question relates to section 4, on the implications on graceful restart.
 I am talking about a case of a planned restart, where a restarting node
follows the OSPF graceful restart procedures. The control plane is
restarting and the node is unable to react to Path requests.  Therefore, the
Path request will not be 'acknowledged' and a PathErr message will be
returned. 

How can we discourage the establishment of new BE LSPs via the restarting
router to avoid the setup failure?

Thanks in advance, Nurit.



-----Original Message-----
From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:kireeti@juniper.net]
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 6:29 PM
To: Nurit Sprecher
Cc: 'ccamp@ops.ietf.org'
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-09.txt

Hi Nurit,

> My question relates to BE (best effort) LSPs. Advertising the links as
fully
> utilized would not discourage the establishment of new BE LSPs via the
> restarting router.

What is the reasoning for this?

If the BE LSPs require zero bandwidth, then I don't see a reason to
prevent them being set up.

Kireeti.