IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: draft-lang-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-e2e-signaling-00.txt

Guangzhi Li <gli@research.att.com> Fri, 21 March 2003 16:22 UTC

Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com
Delivery-date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 08:21:26 -0800
Message-ID: <3E7B3C2F.5080300@research.att.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:22:07 -0500
From: Guangzhi Li <gli@research.att.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jonathan Lang <Jonathan.Lang@RinconNetworks.com>
Cc: 'Adrian Farrel' <afarrel@movaz.com>, ccamp@ops.ietf.org, 'Cheng-Yin Lee' <cheng-yin.lee@alcatel.com>, stefaan.de_cnodder@alcatel.be
Subject: Re: draft-lang-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-e2e-signaling-00.txt
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------050905080503050804050202"

Just echo what Jonathan just said.

The PPRO is not used for secondary LSP computation. It is used for nodes 
along the restoration LSP to book resouces.

How to compute the secondary LSP is not the focus here.

-- Guangzhi

Jonathan Lang wrote:

>[ post by non-subscriber.  with the massive amount of spam, it is easy to miss
>  and therefore delete posts by non-subscribers.  if you wish to regularly
>  post from an address that is not subscribed to this mailing list, send a
>  message to <listname>-owner@ops.ietf.org and ask to have the alternate
>  address added to the list of addresses from which submissions are
>  automatically accepted. ]
>
>Adrian,
>  The nodes along the path of the secondary LSP are not computing ERO
>expansions, but are using the PPRO to determine if resources can be
>booked (or overbooked).
>
>Thanks,
>Jonathan
>
>  
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:afarrel@movaz.com]
>>Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 8:11 PM
>>To: Jonathan Lang
>>Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Cheng-Yin Lee; stefaan.de_cnodder@alcatel.be
>>Subject: Re: draft-lang-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-e2e-signaling-00.txt
>>
>>Thanks Jonathan,
>>
>>I have one remaining point for discussion.
>>How close is the PPRO to the XRO in
>>draft-lee-ccamp-rsvp-te-exclude-route-02.txt?
>>
>>It was certainly our intention that XRO should be applicable to your
>>specific
>>e2e requirements so I'd like to understand the issues with a view to
>>converging
>>the specifications.
>>
>>You said...
>>
>>    
>>
>>>We read the Lee draft, but it was more restrictive than we wanted
>>>      
>>>
>this
>  
>
>>>to be.  We don't want the PPRO to be an "Exclude Route".  Rather, it
>>>      
>>>
>is
>  
>
>>>a local policy issue how to use the PPRO.
>>>      
>>>
>>We have an option in the XRO that says whether the exclusion is
>>    
>>
>required
>  
>
>>or
>>desired. A desired exclusion is clearly a policy issue at the
>>    
>>
>computing
>  
>
>>node.
>>
>>Is there something more specific that you need?
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Adrian
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>

-- 
Guangzhi
-------------------------------------
AT&T Labs - research
Phone 973 360 7376, Fax 973 360 8050

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email