Re: [CCAMP] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4872 (3304)

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

Zafar,

[snip]

> > But the general paradigm here is that you are willing to use the best
> > available LSP when it is set up in the first place, the best available LSP
> > when you re-route after failure, and the best available LSP when you
> > "revert".
> 
> The original paths in the network may be explicit (with mix of dynamic for
other
> services). In this case, service of a LSP may not come back to the original
explicit
> paths if some other (dynamic) LSP "stole" the resources for the failed working
> LSP (if resources are released during a failure) - as you noted above.

Hmmm.

You are saying that when the initial LSP is established it is OK to use and ERO
to "force" it down the path you want. You are not saying that the network
resources must be pre-reserved for the initial LSP.

Why is it not good enough to use an ERO to "force" reversion?

[BTW: the discussion of whether you might want to do it (that we are having now)
is orthogonal to whether it is possible. I have no issue that it is possible,
and I don't think any changes are needed to any documents to enable it or to say
that it is possible.]

Adrian