[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: WG last calls
In RFC 3209,LSP is provided with attribute of Priority(Setup Priority,Holding Priority),
so it is more reasonable to process different LSPs according to the Priority, for the LSP
with higher priority, more retry number should be given, lower priority with less number.
Extremely, to the highest LSP, can the interception be concelled by ABR?(although multi LSPs
may be derived simultaneously, sellection can be done by egress on receiving Path massege
.So we can get another LSP with most possibility because of its highest priority)
Just my suggestion.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Adrian Farrel" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS" <email@example.com>; "Zhang Renhai" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>; "Kireeti Kompella" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: "Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS" <email@example.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2005 1:05 AM
Subject: Re: WG last calls
> Yes, to clarify what Jerry says, the number of crankback attempts MAY be
> limited. At the moment, the only way that we provide to limit the attempts
> is implemented per LSR. That is, any LSR MAY decide that it has performed
> enough attempts at rerouting and pass the error back to the upstream LSR.
> Note that the use of crankback to derive a path through a network is not
> recommended. This approach is almost equivalent to random walk routing and
> is neither efficient nor effective.
> The use of crankback, as described in the draft is intended for use in
> specific circumstances, such as inter-domain routing. In these cases only
> selective LSRs (such as domain boundaries) perform rerouting attempts.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: "Zhang Renhai" <email@example.com>; "Adrian Farrel"
> <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>; "Kireeti Kompella"
> Cc: "Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 2:02 PM
> Subject: RE: WG last calls
> > From draft-ietf-ccamp-crankback-04.txt ,section 4.5, the
> > number of crankback rerouting is limited, so there will
> > be a result: there is another LSP,but for the reason of
> > limiting, the path may be not found. I think sometimes
> > it is unacceptable.The LSP may be prefered to enhancing
> > performance.
> This problem can be avoided by the setting the node retry threshold
> (configurable per node) very high (~infinity), so retries aren't