Re: spc connections

[Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>]

Kireeti,

> Hi Lyndon,
> 
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Ong, Lyndon wrote:
> 
> > Actually the extensions in the GMPLS Overlay draft would not
> > be sufficient.  Overlay deals again with signaled interfaces
> > rather than SPC.
> 
> You make a good point.  A minor inaccuracy is that the signaling can
> be sent across the 'ingress UNI' without having signaling across the
> 'egress UNI' (if you'll forgive my abuse of terminology).
> 
> How about the following further clarification:
> 
> REPLACE:
> 
> 3.3. Explicit Label Control
> 
>    In order to support explicit label control and full identification of
>    the egress link, an ingress edge-node may include an ERO whose last
>    group of subobjects are set as follows:
> 
> WITH:
> 
> 3.3. Explicit Label Control
> 
>    Four signaling modes to establish a connection from the ingress
>    edge-node to the egress edge-node are described here.  The first is
>    a Switched Connection (SC), where the ingress edge-node signals all
>    the way to the egress edge-node.  The second is a Soft Permanent
>    Connection (SPC) where the ingress core-node signals to the egress
>    core-node.  The third is a hybrid signaling mode where an ingress
>    edge-node signals to the egress core-node.  The final mode is when
>    an ingress core-node signals to the egress edge-node; this uses the
>    same procedures as SCs, and will not be further elaborated.
> 
>    In order to support modes two and three, the ingress signaling node
>    (ingress core-node for mode 2 and ingress edge-node for mode 3) must
>    identify the egress link, i.e., the link between the egress core-node
>    and the egress edge-node.  This is done using explicit label control.
>    An ingress signaling node may include an ERO whose last group of
>    subobjects are set as follows:
>    (etc.)
> 
> END

That would be fine. 

Yakov.