[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
At the CCAMP meeting in Salt Lake City I presented
This has previously been cast as a solution to multi-area problems, but of
course it is equally useful within an area for collecting additional error
information and passing it back to repair/re-route points in the network.
In fact, the requirements for crankback are more immediate in the intra-area
case and we would like you to consider the draft in that context. That the
draft also solves inter-area problems should be seen as an additional benefit
that can be utilized in the future if and when multi-area MPLS takes off.
In summary, the draft allows an ingress to control crankback by requesting
detailed feedback from the node that detects the failure, and by selecting the
action that can be taken within the network when failure is detected/reported.
This additional information supplements the details reported back (e.g. on
PathErr and GMPLS Notify) and allows recalculation of a path that avoids the
We would welcome your comments and feedback on the need for crankback both
within and between areas, and on the protocol extensions proposed in the draft.
Movaz Networks Inc.