[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Moving right along ... generalized-signaling-06
To further the discussion, would it be possible to add a new flag for
purpose of identifying whether or not a connection (secondary
connection) can support extra traffic. A 1:1 connection should be able
to support extra traffic (if secondary is not used) while a 1+1 would
not support extra traffic.
Also, we may want to add a flag for whether or not a protection is
Also, current "link flags" is assumed to provide link protection. Maybe
we can add a new flag for either "link" or "path" protection.
So the total is three new flags using 3 bits, out of the current 25
What do you think?
John Drake wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Mack-Crane [mailto:Ben.Mack-Crane@tellabs.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 6:38 AM
> To: Lou Berger
> Cc: Kireeti Kompella; email@example.com
> Subject: Re: Moving right along ... generalized-signaling-06
>>>7) In Protection Information it states "The resources allocated for a
>>> secondary LSP MAY be used by other LSPs until the primary LSP fails
>>> over to the secondary LSP." This may not always be the case. An
>>> explicit flag indicating whether or not extra traffic may use the
>>> secondary path resources is needed.
>>??? This is the purpose of this bit.
> This is not clear from the definition. The bit is defined as indicating
> the LSP is a secondary (or protecting) LSP and in 1+1 protection the
> secondary LSP may not be used for extra traffic.
> Perhaps the problem here is that protection features are being defined
> before the protection framework and requirements are done. Is this
> presupposing some particular outcome of the recovery work in CAMP?
> JD: I think the definition of the bit is fine. For both 1+1 and 1:1
> protection, there would be a pair of Primary LSPs between the source
> and destination, rather than a Primary and a Secondary.