Re: Valid Race Condition related to draft "draft-ietf-mpls-crlsp -modify-03.txt"
"manoj juneja" <manojkumarjuneja@hotmail.com> Wed, 25 April 2001 22:33 UTC
Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com
Delivery-date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 15:35:13 -0700
From: manoj juneja <manojkumarjuneja@hotmail.com>
To: loa.andersson@utfors.se, p_sharma@trillium.com
Cc: dwfedyk@nortelnetworks.com, mpls@UU.NET, ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: Valid Race Condition related to draft "draft-ietf-mpls-crlsp -modify-03.txt"
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 15:33:07 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"
Message-ID: <F219KO8FNpyLAPDVXLu00001613@hotmail.com>
Hi Don/Loa/Prem,
Today we got the mail of making the draft "draft-ietf-mpls-crlsp
-modify-03.txt" as a proposed standard. Should not you people feel that the
restriction that modification of CR-LSP is only applicable to strictly
routed hops should be addressed in the draft prior to making it as a RFC. I
think this is a major restriction and should be addressed in the scope of
the document.
Regards,
manoj.
>From: "Loa Andersson" <loa.andersson@utfors.se>
>To: "Sharma Prem" <p_sharma@trillium.com>
>CC: 'Don Fedyk' <dwfedyk@nortelnetworks.com>, manoj juneja
><manojkumarjuneja@hotmail.com>, mpls@UU.NET
>Subject: Re: Valid Race Condition related to draft "draft-ietf-mpls-crlsp
>-modify-03.txt"
>Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 13:05:32 +0200
>
>All,
>
>some comments to this discussion.
>
>I agree with Perm, if the draft is only applicable to LSPs where every
>node is explicitly routed, that needs to be explicitly state early in
>the draft. Also know from some offsets communication that "the
>explicit routed only" approach is under some debate.
>
>Given that we can have LSPs where other constraints are important, I
>would
>be interested in combining dynamic routed CR-LSPs (routed on other
>constraints than explicit nodes), with one explicitly routed node,
>e.g. for performance measurements. I would also be interested to be
>able to make those measurements at different places, a reason for
>changing (modifying) the LSP, drop one explicitly routed node and
>replace with another.
>
>I'm not concerned over have the loosely routed part of an LSP staying
>alive of the strictly routed part goes away :-), but given that I can
>retry if the a node in the loosely routed part of the LSP NAK a
>request,
>but not if an explicitly routed node does it. Need to distinguish
>between
>cases. Of course this is not a problem if explicit routed only.
>
>It is not only CR-LDP that sets up CR-LSPs, it is much more common to
>do so by RSVP-TE, hence my reflection on the need to something for
>RSVP-TE.
>
>/Loa
>
>
>
>--
>Loa Andersson
>Chief Architect,
>Utfors Research, Architecture and Future Lab (URAX)
>Utfors AB
>Råsundavägen 12
>Box 525, 169 29 Solna
>Office +46 8 5270 2000
>Office direct +46 8 5270 5038
>Mobile +46 70 848 5038
>Email loa.andersson@utfors.se
>WWW www.utfors.se
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com