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

["Jonathan Lang" <[e-mail]>]

[ 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>[e-mail] 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:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 8:11 PM
> To: Jonathan Lang
> Cc: [e-mail]; Cheng-Yin Lee; [e-mail]
> 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
>