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

"Adrian Farrel" <afarrel@movaz.com> Fri, 21 March 2003 16:22 UTC

Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com
Delivery-date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 08:23:00 -0800
Message-ID: <006e01c2efc6$15c8cf00$681810ac@movaz.com>
From: Adrian Farrel <afarrel@movaz.com>
To: Guangzhi Li <gli@research.att.com>, 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: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 11:22:36 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_006B_01C2EF9C.2CBBD880"

OK thanks.
If the two functions are orthogonal, even I don't see any value in trying to converge them on the same object.
Cheers,
Adrian
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Guangzhi Li 
  To: Jonathan Lang 
  Cc: 'Adrian Farrel' ; ccamp@ops.ietf.org ; 'Cheng-Yin Lee' ; stefaan.de_cnodder@alcatel.be 
  Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 11:22 AM
  Subject: Re: draft-lang-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-e2e-signaling-00.txt


  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