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

"Adrian Farrel" <afarrel@movaz.com> Thu, 20 March 2003 04:10 UTC

Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com
Delivery-date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:11:30 -0800
Message-ID: <005701c2ee96$b07f40f0$b5828182@movaz.com>
From: Adrian Farrel <afarrel@movaz.com>
To: Jonathan Lang <Jonathan.Lang@RinconNetworks.com>
Cc: 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
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 23:10:47 -0500

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