[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Last Call on RSVP Label Allocation for Backup Tunnels
> > If one questions the use of local protection all together
> > please specify
> > how else you will achive the same results of even less then 1
> > sec end to
> > end traffic disruption with end to end protection under both
> > link & node
> > failures for the TE- LSP ?
> NH=> Fair point Robert.....but it still leaves me wondering:
> 1 Why do we need such fast action......voice surely does not need few
> 10s ms restoration, 1-3s would be fine I feel sure (for the relatively rare
> case of failure......unless, perhaps, one expects such failures to occur on
> a very frequent basis)?
> BTW- I suspect the biggest source of 'disruptions' will be planned-works by
> operators at L1, ie pre-meditiated re-routing of traffic.....so some care
> should be taken that such actions don't invoke unecessary actions in higher
Well 10s of ms is just that with local link protection we get it for
free. It would be quite artificial to try to slow this down :). For node
protection sure one can reduce the detection frequency to make it
slower. I think vendors will support knob to do this if one desire.
> 2 Where are the failures referenced specified? Have Cisco their own
> specifications for this? We would really like to see these specified in
> some standard manner.
I understand but I don't have any pointer to the formal detailed
specification of failure cases which would be addressed by local