[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: spc connections

Lyndon,

See below:

At 08:06 PM 11/14/2003, Ong, Lyndon wrote:

Hi Dimitri,

"There is no change in protocol to enable this function,
merely a description of how it all works."


Hmm, well I did not see anywhere in the protocol spec
something that states how this works at the present time.
If you are saying the ERO processing can be extended to do this,
yes, but from the previous messages a separate object
seems like a good approach, plus it would be consistent
with G.7713.2.

Sorry if we're monopolizing the list on this issue...

Cheers,

Lyndon

The intent is clear in 3471:



Berger Standards Track [Page 20]

RFC 3471 GMPLS Signaling Functional Description


   label used on a link.  Specifically, the problem is that ERO and ER-
   Hop do not support explicit label sub-objects.  An example case where
   such a mechanism is desirable is where there are two LSPs to be
   "spliced" together, i.e., where the tail of the first LSP would be
   "spliced" into the head of the second LSP.  This last case is more
   likely to be used in the non-PSC classes of links.

We, the authors of 3471, and 3473 thought there was enough in the text to understand how to make "SPC" work.

I accept that some have trouble accepting the intent and need the procedures for support spelled out. I have no issue with writing an informational draft that explicitly states the RSVP-TE procedure for using ERO to provide SPC support. The procedure should be less than one page and have zero (0) protocol changes. I think this should cover the issue.

Lou