Re: LCAS and GMPLS

[Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be]

hi

[snip]

>> 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.

> In my understanding, the ASSOCIATION ID of ASSOCIATION Object only
> relates protected LSP and protecting LSPs.

this object includes a Association Type field (16 bits) that indicates the
type of association being identified, for recovery purposes the Type is 1;

so in the present case (i.e. base VC grouping) a new Type value would be
defined

[snip]