The MPLS WG Archive

[Naiming Shen <naiming@redback.com>]

I think you can use the cue which normal IS-IS ignores this type of
links, which is the links are having the default metric of (2^24 - 1).


 ]> Folks,
 ]> 
 ]> Yakov and Kireeti have requested that draft-kompella-lsp-hierarchy-00.txt
 ]> be accepted as a work group document.  So far I've only seen support.
 ]> If there are no objects by 6/27, we'll declare it so.
 ]> 
 ]> ...George
 ]
 ]I find this draft a useful addition to the discussion of TE, and would
 ]support it's adoption as an MPLS group document.
 ]
 ]However, I am a bit puzzled by the last paragraph before
 ]section 4.3 (bottom of page 5).
 ]
 ]	"Route computation procedures should not perform two-way
 ]	 connectivity check on the links used by the procedures.
 ]	 That is, the two way check should not be performed on
 ]	 one-way pipes, as they will fail."
 ]
 ]I agree that relaxing this test for one-way links is a Good Thing.  But 
 ]looking at the aged out draft "IS-IS extensions for Traffic Engineering"
 ]<draft-ietf-isis-traffic-01.txt> I don't understand how we distinguish 
 ]"forward adjacencies" that are unidirectional LSPs from point-to-point 
 ]adjacencies, where we should retain the test.  
 ]
 ]Perhaps this will be addressed in the next rev of the IS-IS TE doc.  
 ]
 ]- jeff parker
 ]- Lucent Technologies
 ]
 ]
 ]_______________________________________________
 ]Isis-wg mailing list  -  Isis-wg@external.juniper.net
 ]http://external.juniper.net/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg

- Naiming