Hi Wataru,
> > > Another requirement to consider is whether the associating the LSPs
> > > needs to be recursive. For example, consider an STS-3c-2v where one
of
> > > the STS-3c is a real contiguously >
> > > concatenated LSP, and the other is actually an STS-1-3v (three STS-1
> > > LSPs). From a bearer plane point of view, this is possible. Does
the
> > > service maintain the two STS-3c LSP > association and the three
STS-1 LSP
> > > association?
> > > I suggest that there be a requirement for recursive association.
> >
> >IB>> This is an interesting requirement. Fortunately, it is possible to
> >realize this requirement via GMPLS signaling by including several
> >ASSOCIATION objects of the same type into the same Path message. For
> >instance, one of them will indicate that the signalled LSP belongs to
the
> >nested VCAT group, while another -to the nesting VCAT group.
>
> Current ASSOCIATION objects relates only two connections.
Can you say why you think this is so?
Looking at draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-e2e-signaling-03.txt I do not
see anything that forces this limitation. In fact, it would be hard to
offer 1:n protection with such a scheme.