The MPLS WG Archive

[Shen Gangxiang <EGXShen@ntu.edu.sg>]

I agree with Olivier's point.

Gangxiang 

-----Original Message-----
From: Olivier Dugeon
To: mpls@UU.NET
Sent: 11/10/00 3:54 PM
Subject: Comment on draft-ietf-mpls-crlsp-modify-02

Hi all,

In section 4.1 : "Ri assigns a new label for the Label Request Message."

I think this is necessary only for re-routing i.e. ER-TLV changes. For
over traffic parameters modification, i think it's preferable to keep
the existing label. Because the route doesn't change, it's more simple
to keep the existing label (which reflect the path of the LSPID) than
change label. Then, you doesn't need to send a Label Release Message.
But, to ensure a three-way handshake of the protocol, it must be safe to
send a Notification Message instead of a Release Message in this context
to confirm the modification by ingress LSR.

In this fashion, crlsp modification is much closer than it can be
possible with RM Cells (Ressource Management Cells) in ATM network.

In section 9 : 

Why references of crldp and ldp are not up to date ? Where i can find
draft-ash-qos-routing-00.txt ? is the same as
draft-ash-te-qos-routing-01.txt ?

Thanks,

Olivier
-- 
 FTR&D/DAC/CPN
 Technopole Anticipa     | mailto:Olivier.Dugeon@francetelecom.fr
 2, Avenue Pierre Marzin | Phone:  +(33) 2 96 05 28 80
 F-22307 LANNION         | Fax:    +(33) 2 96 05 18 52