Re: RE : RE : TR : I-D ACTION:draft-leroux-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-eval-00.txt

["Igor Bryskin" <ibryskin@movaz.com>]

> >
> >IB>>Well, are they? They give you a way to signal a
> >requirement not to commit resources for an LSP until
> >further notice and also to require their commitment
> >when it becomes necessary. Why not to allow working
> >LSP to be signaled as Secondary according to the
> >mentioned draft? Then it would be possible even to
> >signal protected virtual FAs, which is not as stupid
> >as it may sound :=)
>
> Sorry but this sounds really bad...
> Please let me know then how do you signal protected virtual FAs?
>
> IB>> You signal both working and protection LSPs of the FA as Secondary.
At
> the time when you decide to make FA "real" you re-signal working or both
> LSPs (depending on protection type) as Primary. Don't see why this
wouldn't
> work.
>
> DP> because what do you do in case the primary (virtual) FA-LSP fails ?
you
> are simply going to activate the secondary (virtual) FA-LSP which is in
> clear
> opposition with the notion of virtual-FA - the reason is again because you
> are trying to use one bit i.e. S to say something in a context (protection
> object) for which it has not been designed for
>

IB>> Oh-Oh, what do you mean by "primary (virtual) FA-LSP fails" and  "you
are simply going to activate the secondary (virtual) FA-LSP "?  I activate
protection LSP if I have a failure in the *data plane* of the working LSP.
But working LSP of the virtual FA does not have any data plane yet, there is
nothing that can trigger the protection LSP activation and switchover.

Igor