The MPLS WG Archive

["Vishal Sharma" <v.sharma@ieee.org>]

Hi Shahram,

The latest version of the MPLS Recovery framework has been submitted
to the IETF drafts directory:
draft-ietf-mpls-recovery-frmwrk-06.txt,
and should be available next week.

It addresses the concern you raised below, by rewording the description
in (now) Section 4.6, and allowing for notification to proceed in either
direction. This was done by introducing a point of repair (POR) LSR,
which could be a PSL or a PML, depending on the recovery scheme deployed.

I believe this will satisfactorily address your concern.

We'd like to thank Dave Allan for suggesting the alternative wording,
and the POR definition. Thanks Dave!

-Vishal & Fiffi (and co-authors)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-mpls@UU.NET [mailto:owner-mpls@UU.NET]On Behalf Of Shahram
> Davari
> Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 4:28 PM
> To: 'mpls@uu.net'
> Subject: RE: draft-ietf-mpls-recovery-frmwrk-04.txt
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Why is that in section 3.6. (Fault Notification), the only 
> notification method mentioned is sending FIS upstream, 
> hop-by-hop. Although this is possible but a simpler and more 
> conventional method is to send the FIS to the PML and let the PML 
> inform the PSL. Is this type of notification excluded? If so why, 
> and if not could the authors please add it to the text.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Shahram 
>