[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Updates to draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-graceful-shutdown

Zafar,
In short, you don't need new error codes to support the upstream identification of type of reroute being indicated (node, interface, component, label).
This can be determined based on the ERROR_SPEC object and included TLVs. This is already covered in the reroute draft. I thought the text at the end of 2.1 of the reroute draft was sufficiently clear to indicate how one would do this with the existing error codes. I guess some examples for each of the cases will make this more apparent. 

looks like there are still open issues in the draft(s)...

Lou

At 12:34 PM 10/29/2008, Zafar Ali (zali) wrote:

Hi Lou-

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lou Berger
> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 11:56 AM
> To: Zafar Ali (zali)
> Cc: Lou Berger; Adrian Farrel; ccamp@ops.ietf.org;
> mpls@ietf.org; jpv@cisco.com; Anca Zamfir (ancaz); Newton, Jonathan
> Subject: Re: Updates to draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-graceful-shutdown
>
> Zafar,
>
> Why does the document define new error codes (and why 4)?  Is
> it that the reroute document isn't sufficient clear on how to
> indicated each of the 4? Is it some other reason?
>

This is because headend may be able to compute alternate route
("reroute" action) for mb4b differently, depending on the resource under
graceful shutdown, as detailed in the document. Hence one code is define
for TE node, TE link, component link of a bundled TE link, and label
resource, each.

Thanks

Regards... Zafar

<snip>