The MPLS WG Archive

[Pramoda Nallur <Pramoda.Nallur@ind.alcatel.com>]

Jah,

Jahaapanah Alampanah wrote:

> Hi Jie,
>
> If I understand Nallur's problem statement
> correctly, its got to do with aggregation
> of RSVP micro flows into LSP Tunnels
> setup by MPLS-RSVP.
>
>
> An RSVP-LSP-Tunnel has already been established
> between LER1 and LER2. Now a micro-flow RSVP
> PATH message from S arrives at LER1. We want
> this micro-flow to take the LSP. So if we just
> tunnel this PATH message into the LSP, and
> make it reach end-host R, the problem is
> how do we transport the RESV message from R
> back to S through the same LSP since this
> is uni-directional?
>

You are right in your understanding. But, the question is, should the micro-flow PATH message
be tunelled into the LSP at all ?

- Pramoda.

>
> I hope Nallur agrees with this re-statement!
>
> All comments are welcome.
>
> -Jah
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jie Zou <jzou@mars.iol.unh.edu>
> To: Pramoda Nallur <Pramoda.Nallur@ind.alcatel.com>
> Cc: mpls@UU.NET <mpls@UU.NET>; Dilip.Pandit@ind.alcatel.com
> <Dilip.Pandit@ind.alcatel.com>; Kishore Rao <kishore>;
> Manu.Prakash@ind.alcatel.com <Manu.Prakash@ind.alcatel.com>
> Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2000 6:49 PM
> Subject: Re: Reg. MPLS-RSVP LSP Tunnels...
>
> >
> >I hope the following can answer a part of questions.
> >
> >According the darft, if A or B is a non-RSVP router, it can't convey
> >labels via RSVP path. And it's neighber who knows it's non-RSVP
> >router should send a PathErr back to the sender.
> >
> >If A or B is an RSVP router but doesn't recognize the LRO, it should
> >send a PathErr toward the sender.
> >
> >If A or B is an RSVP router and recognize the LRO but not C_TYPE also
> >sends a PathErr toward the sender.
> >
> >Else the Path msg should pass A and B toward the receiver and
> >vice verse the Resv msg should pass the B and A toward the sender.
> >
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >-----------------------------------------------------
> >Jie Zou (603)862-4212(Office)
> >MPLS Consortium
> >IOL, UNH (603)868-2983(Home)
> >-----------------------------------------------------
> >
> >On Tue, 25 Jul 2000, Pramoda Nallur wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I have a query on setting up RSVP MPLS LSPs in an ATM network.
> >> [ Topology Driven LSP Setup Scenario ]
> >>
> >> Suppose the network configuration is as follows :
> >>
> >>     S--A--LER1---LSR---LER2--B--R
> >>
> >> where,
> >>     S                   --> Sender(RSVP aware)
> >>     R                   --> Receiver(RSVP aware)
> >>     A, B                --> Legacy IP Routers
> >>     LER1, LER2 and LSR  --> MPLS-RSVP ATM switches.
> >>
> >> An LSP setup is initiated from LER1 with FEC=(S,R).
> >>
> >> The RSVP-TE PATH msg (with Sender=S, Session = Sess_R) creates an
> >> RSVP Session, Sess_R at LER1, LSR and LER2. The Egress LER2 responds with
> a
> >>
> >> RSVP-TE RESV msg reserving resources and sets up an LSP via LSR to LER1.
> >>
> >> After the LSP is setup, the RSVP-TE PATH msgs from LER1 and RSVP-TE RESV
> >> msgs
> >> from LER2 periodically refresh the RSVP reservation state on all nodes
> >> along the LSP.
> >>
> >> Suppose, Sender S sends an RSVP PATH msg to R (with Session = Sess_R).
> >>
> >>  1. Will this PATH msg take the unlabelled path OR will it get switched
> >> onto the LSP at LER1 ?
> >>
> >>  2. Also, how are the resulting RESV msgs from R propagated back to S ?
> >>
> >>  3. If these PATH and RESV msgs take the unlabelled path, will this result
> >> in
> >>     resource allocation again along all nodes traversed by the LSP ?
> >>
> >>
> >> The "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels"
> >> (draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-lsp-tunnel-06.txt)
> >> does not mention how the above should be handled.
> >>
> >> Any comments on this ?
> >>
> >> - Pramoda Nallur
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
> ____________________________________________________________________
> Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com.