Re: draft-ietf-l3vpn-rt-constrain-01.txt

[Spice Sylvia <[e-mail]>]

Thanks a lot Robert,

Just happy to know I wasn't a raving lunatic when I
asked for something like RT :))

for TE, I guess we will have to wait for the link
bandwidth community to happen or the metric to change
into bandwidth from hops.

looking forward to it..

-brgds
Sylvia

 --- Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]> wrote: 
> Hi Sylvia,
> 
> If I am interpreting your quiestion right - yes A is
> possible. In fact 
> stay tuned for more details on A alone. I have work
> in progress trying 
> to document A a bit in more detail.
> 
> Thx,
> R.
> 
>  > Spice Sylvia wrote:
>  >
> > Hello folks
> > 
> > in the draft, given that AS#RT# froms a NLRI,
> > 
> > a. Is it possible to have only the AS#RT#s
> avaliable
> > on a node and based on the fact that someone does
> an
> > import of that RT#, the prefixes should be
> fetched?
> > (that is we only send AS#RT# to peers via BGP and
> when
> > group membership/VPN membership is signaled, the
> > prefixes are imported)
> > 
> > b. If (a) is not feasable for whatever reasons 
> (like
> > time to fetch prefixes etc), and assuming that
> > AS#RT#prefix# are all present on the peer, can we
> > assume that only when a peer of the node imports a
> > particular AS#RT#, will the corresponding
> forwarding
> > element/label be inserted in the FIB?
> > 
> > In other words, other than the benefits of TE from
> > RSVP-TE, can a or b be used to setup signaled
> LSPs?
> > 
> > -brgds
> > Sylvia
> > 



	
	
		
___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!  http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com