Vijay
A couple logic flaws.
1) don't release B-C before new B-D mapping is
received.
2) Loose hops shouldn't have bandwidth
constraints, think about it, a loose hop has to follow the best route and
can't do admission control.
Don
> -----Original Message-----
>
From: Vijayanand C - CTD, Chennai. [mailto:vijayc@ctd.hcltech.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 12:48 AM
> To: mpls@UU.NET
> Subject: CR
LDP Local repair
>
>
> Hello all,
> I have a
question on the signalling funcionality in CR LDP
>
for local repair.
>
>
Consider the topology below.
>
>
---------- C ------------
>
|
|
> --A
--- B ---------------------- D--
>
>
>
> Assume a tunnel exist across A-B-C-D( loose ER Hops as B D )
> Suppose a
>
route update happens at node B with the next hop for node D
> being node D
> itself(may be due to BW
constraints the CSPF has taken this
> decision and
LSP
> is now going straight through). At this point
node B sends a
> release along
> CD to release the old segment and a request to D. In case,
> the request
> (which
has to travel just one hop) arrives earlier than the
> release( which
> has to be processed at
CR LDP at node C ) at node D, then
> the
request would
> be rejected by node D because the
request is not a
> mdification request but a
> request for existing LSP itself !!
>
> This situation would occur more
consistently if the original
> path that is
> released were more longer than the new path.
>
> How does CR LDP
handle such a signalling scenario?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
Regards,
> Vijay
>
>