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
- Re: draft-lang-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-e2e-signaling… Adrian Farrel
- Re: draft-lang-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-e2e-signaling… Guangzhi Li
- RE: draft-lang-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-e2e-signaling… Jonathan Lang
- Re: draft-lang-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-e2e-signaling… Adrian Farrel
- RE: draft-lang-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-e2e-signaling… Jonathan Lang
- RE: draft-lang-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-e2e-signaling… Jonathan Lang
- draft-lang-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-e2e-signaling-00.… Adrian Farrel