"Igor Bryskin" <ibryskin@movaz.com>
Sent by: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
03/04/2005 18:05 EST
To: "Igor Bryskin" <i_bryskin@yahoo.com>, Dimitri PAPADIMITRIOU/BE/ALCATEL@ALCATEL
cc: "LE ROUX Jean-Louis RD-CORE-LAN" <jeanlouis.leroux@francetelecom.com>, <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
bcc:
Subject: Re: RE : RE : TR : I-D ACTION:draft-leroux-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-eval-00.txt
> >
> >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.
DP> but they are associated to resources they do not use - and the control plane role is to ensure that when they need to be activated resources can be used - the question JL raises is the problem of "how do i protect a virtual FA" and the response is if you are using the S bit for telling i am a virtual FA you can not use it anymore to ensure protection of a primary (and even less a secondary !) - this said an secondary LSP exists only within the context of its primary