The MPLS WG Archive

[Curtis Villamizar <curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org>]

In message <6DEA508A9A0ED31192E80000F6CC176E2CA2F8@monk.datcon.co.uk>, Adrian F
arrel writes:
> Markus,
> 
> >it seems to me the invention of the Notify message in GMPLS was not
> >such a great idea.
> 
> Jonathan has responded as to why he sees the Notify as useful.
> 
> !  You are correct that you don't have agreement with your 
> !co-authors on removing the Notify.  The Notify message is a
> !new general notification procedure that is NOT restricted to
> !be sent to a source/destination node and should not be 
> !processed by intermediate nodes.  These features are
> !desirable for restoration/protection among other things.
> 
> I believe that there was some concern that Notify should flow
> direct to the target not only for speed,  but also to 
> circumvent possible breaks in the route of the LSP (which you 
> obviously can't do if you follow the LSP hop by hop).  This
> would, however, be handling a second order error.


The second order error would also propogate back to the source, plus
flooding would go around the IGP error.  The second order error would
itself cause a TEAR and the exact same reaction as the first order
error so this isn't a very strong technical point on your part.

Curtis