The MPLS WG Archive

[Shahram Davari <Shahram_Davari@pmc-sierra.com>]

Jean,

My question was basically why not compute the bypass LSPs at the ingress
LSRs?

Yours,
-Shahram

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jean Philippe Vasseur [mailto:jvasseur@cisco.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 11:01 AM
> To: Shahram Davari
> Cc: 'Ping Pan'; 'mpls@UU.net'
> Subject: RE: Comments on Fast Reroute draft
> 
> 
> Hi Shahram,
> 
> At 06:21 23/08/2002 -0700, Shahram Davari wrote:
> >Jean,
> >
> >I meant central.
> 
> right, the bypass LSP paths could be calculated:
> - in a distributed manner by the PLRs
>          o without bw protection (just easy, as the only 
> constraint is to 
> be diversely routed from the protected section),
>          o with bandwidth protection (one method being described in 
> draft-vasseur-mpls-backup-computation-00.txt)
> - by a central PCS (one method being described in 
> draft-vasseur-mpls-backup-computation-00.txt)
> 
> Thanks for your comments on both drafts.
> 
> JP.
> 
> >-Shahram
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jean Philippe Vasseur [mailto:jvasseur@cisco.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 6:16 PM
> > > To: Shahram Davari
> > > Cc: 'Ping Pan'; 'mpls@UU.net'
> > > Subject: RE: Comments on Fast Reroute draft
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Sharam,
> > >
> > > Sorry for the late reply ....
> > >
> > > At 11:16 09/08/2002 -0700, Shahram Davari wrote:
> > > >Ping,
> > > >
> > > >draft-vasseur-mpls-backup-computation-00.txt is also proposing
> > > >non-local bypass tunnel computation. Has this draft also
> > > been rejected?
> > >
> > > could you clarify what was your original point regarding non
> > > local bypass
> > > tunnel path computation ?
> > > JP.
> > >
> > > >-Shahram
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Ping Pan [mailto:pingpan@cs.columbia.edu]
> > > > > Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 2:12 PM
> > > > > To: Shahram Davari
> > > > > Cc: 'mpls@UU.net'
> > > > > Subject: Re: Comments on Fast Reroute draft
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Shahram Davari wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Ping,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>The ingress does not need to compute the bypass tunnel.
> > > > > Bypass tunnel
> > > > > >>computation could be a local decision.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > 
> >>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mpls-fastrerout
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > e-mib-00.txt
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But it may also be a non-local decision.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Shahram
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I think MPLS WG had gone through this argument before (there
> > > > > was a draft
> > > > > on this). I recall nobody wanted it. The question was why.
> > > > > Also are we
> > > > > going to design a RSVP fragmentation extension to 
> support large
> > > > > messages? ;-)
> > > > >
> > > > > - Ping
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
>