Re: Internet Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-segment-recovery-03.txt

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Wed, 18 October 2006 13:07 UTC

Message-Id: <7.0.1.0.2.20061018085028.06106aa0@labn.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 08:57:48 -0400
To: Peng He <peng.he.2000@gmail.com>
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Subject: Re: Internet Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-segment-recovery-03.txt
Cc: lberger@labn.net, ccamp <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <406e32c00610171123v118e5a39taa90deb8d9f7dd5@mail.gmail.com >
References: <406e32c00610171123v118e5a39taa90deb8d9f7dd5@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk

Peng,
         I think this is a path computation/engineering question more 
than one of signaling semantics.  The only *required* 
restriction/implication on EROs is already listed in the draft, namely:
    The first
    subobject MUST indicate the node that is to originate the recovery
    LSP, i.e. the segment branch node.  The address used SHOULD also be
    listed in the ERO or another SERO.

other than that, there's no required change, i.e., as always it's up 
to the TE application (and the PCE function) to decide which parts of 
the ERO should be loose or strict.

 From the practical application standpoint, I certainly see the value 
in the use of some strict subobjects.

Lou

At 02:23 PM 10/17/2006, Peng He wrote:

>Hello Lou,
>
>I am reading your draft on segment recovery. I wonder if the ERO (of
>the working LSP) in the PATH message must be strict? Thanks.
>
>Regards,
>Peng
>
>
>
>

Internet Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-segment-rec… Peng He
Re: Internet Draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-segment… Lou Berger