IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mpls] [CCAMP] New Draft Notification: draft-dong-ccamp-rsvp-te-plr-designation-00

Francesco Fondelli <francesco.fondelli@gmail.com> Thu, 04 March 2010 16:12 UTC

Return-Path: <francesco.fondelli@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE91128C1E8; Thu, 4 Mar 2010 08:12:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9q2F02SI1LSO; Thu, 4 Mar 2010 08:12:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-fx0-f213.google.com (mail-fx0-f213.google.com [209.85.220.213]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 377C928C1E0; Thu, 4 Mar 2010 08:12:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by fxm5 with SMTP id 5so2995465fxm.29 for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 04 Mar 2010 08:12:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=poSIUAn+v/agKWYc0G6BkUejBv5DqfGQq0QjJunXMPc=; b=cixUiW2jxFWZaL/lpwyJfcTIgRq22xRBeUb/87SIYFFWVGi0yQ1OB2LVooR/ZvnpRM ofcrbQBJ59Wn2lI3/KG/8YlyM1Mw7rsA0G4lxQBeZmjclXVujabUigs2uUw50BrGQ/im VZbjymUXhvazLNbRq+KRElDIk6ycK3+m9GSJU=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=Qtn1iicqBgbFygMidsIXdOafdC2KvVHcKmN9SJXTSrW0QbfSM++CGam2CAaFu2JVS3 azYY31uIU28b8s6KdeTkFtQwMhEIjFb2fMNqTDfJomrkSsEVoGzkJLsP1dxEWTYEV0fr 3uro+5SM+XfXyvxbOjP8zzDIaqUScadtLT38s=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.6.153 with SMTP id 25mr3854239faz.81.1267719133878; Thu, 04 Mar 2010 08:12:13 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <B4E97C5E-3860-46B8-A522-579B6400D079@cisco.com>
References: <05d401cabaab$a0348190$bf0c6f0a@china.huawei.com> <B4E97C5E-3860-46B8-A522-579B6400D079@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 17:12:13 +0100
Message-ID: <7c923b5e1003040812g6e3dec6bh3598a4427be16116@mail.gmail.com>
From: Francesco Fondelli <francesco.fondelli@gmail.com>
To: JP Vasseur <jvasseur@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: mpls@ietf.org, ccamp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mpls] [CCAMP] New Draft Notification: draft-dong-ccamp-rsvp-te-plr-designation-00
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 16:12:17 -0000

On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 3:46 PM, JP Vasseur <jvasseur@cisco.com> wrote:
> Dear Jie,
> Second and third arguments: If there is not enough backup bandwidth for
[cut]

fourth argument:

Didn't RFC 4873 already "allow (a) the signaling of
desired LSP segment protection type, (b) upstream nodes to optionally
identify where segment protection starts and stops, (c) the optional
identification of hops used on protection segments, and (d) the
reporting of paths used to protect an LSP."?

I believe you can setup and explicitly control backup
LSPs if you follow RFC 4873 *and* RFC 4090... I've never done it,
though.

Ciao
FF

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email