RE: FW: path TLV & srlg TLV

[Jun Yu <jyu@fwion.com>]

No. I don't think so. 

But what I want to point out is,

(1). There is inconsistency between "LSP Hierarchy with Generalized MPLS TE"
and 
"Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Architecture" on this
matter 
(whether to use path TLV or SRLG TLV in FA advertisement).

(2). If we only advertise Path Information for the FA, then the SRLG
information of the FA 
can be derived, just as you specified in the "LSP Hierarchy" draft, it is
"the union of the 
SRLGs of the underlying TE links that make up the FA-LSP path".

On the other hand, if we only advertise SRLG Information for the FA, then
the FA-LSP's path 
information becomes opaque to all the LSRs other than the headend LSR. This
makes it difficult 
for the LSR to make a routing decision with "Link", or "Node" diversity
requirement.

Thanks.

-Jun

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:kireeti@juniper.net]
> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 5:05 PM
> To: Jun Yu
> Cc: 'ccamp@ops.ietf.org'
> Subject: Re: FW: path TLV & srlg TLV
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, 15 Mar 2002, Jun Yu wrote:
> 
> > > Section 4.1.10, the context is changed to "SRLG 
> Information" from the
> > > previous "Path Information".
> 
> Do you think it is useful to include both SRLG and Path information?
> 
> Kireeti.
>