The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2002-Aug> msg00068



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]  
  [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index]

fast-reroute merging

  • From: "Sundara Murugan" <smurugan@riverstonenet.com>
  • Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 11:21:37 -0700
  • Thread-Index: AcJCKceYKLKXdtEbT0ygVCqG7+EsrQAABX4Q
  • Thread-Topic: fast-reroute merging
  • X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by cell.onecall.net id g7CIJT331140

Shahram,

Section 5.3.1 says that the MP selects the shorter ERO path length. This may not be correct.

If there are other routers between I and E, then the ERO lenght of the detour from C could be more than the ERO lenght of the detour from B. If you go by the rule, then H will merge the detours from B & C and establish a detour to D. Then the detour from C will not avoid its next-hop D. So there won't be a detour from C.

So the MP has to select the detour which merges with the main LSP that is closer to the egress router.

-sundara 


-----Original Message-----
From: Shahram Davari [mailto:Shahram_Davari@pmc-sierra.com]
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 10:57 AM
To: Sundara Murugan; mpls@UU.net
Subject: RE: fast-reroute merging


Sundara,

This is exactly the same question that I asked in another email:

"Since as stated in section 7, each PLR has option to apply its own constraints, then each PLR  may reach to a different backup-path ERO for the same flow. Assuming that the EROs have a single link (the downstream link of an MP LSP) in common, isn't it wrong for an MP LSR to merge those Path messages?"


I think the solution is to require the same ERO for merging.

Yours,
-Shahram




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sundara Murugan [mailto:smurugan@riverstonenet.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 1:36 PM
> To: mpls@UU.net
> Subject: fast-reroute merging
> 
> 
> Section 5.3.1 in draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-lsp-fastreroute-00.txt  
> explains merging procedure. In the fig below if there is a 
> link between I and F then D will have a detour D-I-F. In this 
> case how router I (the MP) handles detour LSPs from B, C and D?
> 
> -sundara
> 
> ------
> 
> 5.3.1. An Example on Path Message Merging
> 
> Consider the following example:
> 
> 
>                 G----H----I--\
>                 |    |    |   \
>            A----B----C----D----E---F
> 
> 
>    The protected LSP is A-B-C-D-E-F. After running CSPF, let 
> the detour
>    ERO from B be B-G-H-I-D-E-F, and the detour ERO from C be 
> C-H-I-E-F.
> 
>    H will receive Path messages that have the same SESSION and
> 
> 
>