The MPLS WG Archive[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index] 1+1 protection switching
but isnt there a requirement that in an LSP, there should be no packet reordering. ~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~ Saurabh Shrivastava saurabh@timetra.com TiMetra, Inc. 408.245.8796 (residence) http://www.timetra.com/ 650.237.5154 (office) ~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~ * -----Original Message----- * From: owner-mpls@UU.NET [mailto:owner-mpls@UU.NET]On Behalf Of Pour, * Mort * Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 11:13 AM * To: 'mpls@uu.net' * Subject: RE: 1+1 protection switching * * * On second thought I agree. I don't think there will any * problem except for * some * retransmissions or some duplicate packets being dropped. * * * -----Original Message----- * From: Shahram Davari [mailto:Shahram_Davari@pmc-sierra.com] * Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 10:49 AM * To: 'Pour, Mort'; 'mpls@uu.net' * Subject: RE: 1+1 protection switching * * * Could you please explain more, why do you think that TCP * connection may be * dropped. * * > -----Original Message----- * > From: Pour, Mort [mailto:mpour@celoxnetworks.com] * > Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 11:39 AM * > To: 'mpls@uu.net' * > Subject: RE: 1+1 protection switching * > * > * > Thanks, * > But this may also cause the connection to be dropped by TCP? * > * > Regards, * > Mort * > * > * > -----Original Message----- * > From: Shahram Davari [mailto:Shahram_Davari@pmc-sierra.com] * > Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 10:36 AM * > To: 'Pour, Mort'; 'mpls@uu.net' * > Subject: RE: 1+1 protection switching * > * > * > Hi, * > * > I think it is understood/accepted that a number of packets * > may be dropped or * > deliver out of order for a short period of time. The * receiver should * > re-order the packets and/or request retransmission. * > * > Yours, * > -Shahram * > * > > -----Original Message----- * > > From: Pour, Mort [mailto:mpour@celoxnetworks.com] * > > Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 10:57 AM * > > To: 'mpls@uu.net' * > > Subject: 1+1 protection switching * > > * > > * > > * > > I have a question regarding the 1+1 protection switching * in MPLS. * > > Draft <draft-ietf-mpls-recovery-frmwrk-02.txt> * > > states that the path merge LSR can select the backup path * > > when the primary * > > path fails. * > > What about the issues of duplicate (or missing) packets on * > > the backup path * > > due * > > to variations in delay between the two path. Or if the * two path are * > > synchronized, how is that achieved? * > > * > > Thanks * > > Mort Pour * > > * >
|
|