Re: association object

Richard Rabbat <richard@us.fujitsu.com> Tue, 18 July 2006 17:56 UTC

Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G2tnw-0002yN-NH for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Jul 2006 13:56:20 -0400
Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G2tnu-0001rN-Cs for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Jul 2006 13:56:20 -0400
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.60 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org>) id 1G2thT-000CvP-IV for ccamp-data@psg.com; Tue, 18 Jul 2006 17:49:39 +0000
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.1 (2006-03-10) on psg.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.1.1
Received: from [192.240.0.5] (helo=fujitsu0.fujitsu.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.60 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <richard@us.fujitsu.com>) id 1G2thS-000CvB-BF for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 18 Jul 2006 17:49:38 +0000
Received: from fujitsu0.fujitsu.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fujitsu0.fujitsu.com (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id k6IHnREv029323; Tue, 18 Jul 2006 10:49:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fujitsui.fna.fujitsu.com ([133.164.253.1]) by fujitsu0.fujitsu.com (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id k6IHnKUL029297; Tue, 18 Jul 2006 10:49:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailserv.fla.fujitsu.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fujitsui.fna.fujitsu.com (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id k6IHnIgt018288; Tue, 18 Jul 2006 10:49:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [133.164.59.85] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailserv.fla.fujitsu.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id k6IHnIw24222; Tue, 18 Jul 2006 10:49:18 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <44BD1F1D.2070004@us.fujitsu.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 10:49:17 -0700
From: Richard Rabbat <richard@us.fujitsu.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (Windows/20060516)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Lucy Yong <lucyyong@huawei.com>
CC: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: association object
References: <009b01c6aa74$c3a13c90$a5087c0a@china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <009b01c6aa74$c3a13c90$a5087c0a@china.huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 21c69d3cfc2dd19218717dbe1d974352

Lucy,
likewise. my comments inline.

Lucy Yong wrote:
>
> Richard,
>
>  
>
> It was nice to meet you in IETF meeting. I have a question about 
> association object used to associate the diversely routed LSPs.
>
>  
>
> If a LSP is established first, say LSP1, then another LSP (say LSP2) 
> needs to be established and be diversely routed from LSP1, how 
> association object is applied in this case? It is easy to use in the 
> latter LSP request, however, how does LSP1 know that it needs to 
> diverse from LSP2.
>
Lyndon covered the diversity issue and the fact that we are not doing 
path computation here, but I would like to add one more comment since 
I've got a similar question.  For LSP1 to be aware of the association, 
one can send a full PATH message with the added association object. this 
is neither a refresh message nor a new path setup message. all nodes 
will process that message and be aware of the new association object and 
hence LSP1 will from then on know about the association.
I hope this helps
Richard.

>  
>
> What is the relationship between this association object and diversity 
> object in GMPLS.
>
>  
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Lucy
>
>   
>