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

Dear Jie,

Looking at section 3:

    In some scenarios the ingress node may need to specify particular
    LSRs as PLRs, and the protection type of each particular PLR. This
    can be helpful in many aspects. Firstly, this enables the ingress
    node to setup the backup LSPs in a more controllable way. Secondly,
    this could avoid making LSRs which do not have enough resources to
    provide local protections work as PLRs. Thirdly, this could save
    bandwidth reserved for unnecessary backup LSPs.

First argument: why does the proposal allow the ingress node to set up  
the backup LSP ?
Second and third arguments: If there is not enough backup bandwidth  
for the set of backup LSP, just use the
"bandwidth protection desired" bit. Nothing prevents you for having 0- 
bw backup LSP and non 0 bw backup
LSP that use that bit to only book backup capacity when required.

Thanks.

JP.

On Mar 3, 2010, at 9:29 AM, Jie Dong wrote:

>
> Dear all,
>
> There is a new internet draft: draft-dong-ccamp-rsvp-te-plr- 
> designation-00:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dong-ccamp-rsvp-te-plr-designation-00
>
> The abstract is as follows:
>
> This document defines RSVP-TE extensions which enable the ingress  
> node to
> designate particular LSRs along the path as Points of Local Repair  
> (PLRs) of
> the protected LSP, and further indicate the protection type of each  
> PLR.
> These mechanisms could enhance the control over the establishment of  
> backup
> LSPs, and also could save the resources needed for establishing and
> maintaining unnecessary backup LSPs.
>
> Comments are appreciated.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
> Jie
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> CCAMP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp