The MPLS WG Archive

[Blaine Christian <blaine@UU.NET>]

Quite simply...  If there is no agreement amongst what are considered
the primary MPLS vendors then you HAVE to specify it in within the
draft.  So, all vendors should consent to allow for significant
permutations or define in the RFC.  The whole point of the IETF is to
help prevent or resolve issues such as this.    At this point the
change in the RFC seems to be straightforward and vendor agreement to
support the permutations does not appear to exist (yet).  

Jim, I think you could also argue that a third option exists.

o) Require in the RFC that an LSP ID NOT change during BW decrease.

Not that I like the third option but we should be fair in presenting
it.





Jim Boyle wrote:
> 
> Yes, we all agree that as the spec states, when the path changes the LSP
> ID should be changed.
> 
> The issue is that one implementation has issues if the LSP ID of
> a transit LSP does not change when the bandwidth decreases.  Alternatively
> you could state that the issue is that one (or two) implementations are
> unique in that they don't change the LSP ID when they decrease the
> bandwidth.
> 
> So the options at this point are:
> 
> o) address the implementation with transit issue when bandwidth decreases
> and LSP ID is not changed.
> 
> o) require LSP ID change during BW decrease in the spec and address the
> implementation(s) which currently don't do this.
> 
> We've had a few people weigh in on both sides of this, so I'm not sure
> if there is any resolution.
> 
> Jim
> 
> On Mon, 4 Nov 2002, Francois Lemarchand wrote:
> 
> > Hello !
> >
> > For re-optimisation I guess. If there is a need to change
> > the path when bandwidth increase then it's probably usefull
> > to return to the old path when bandwidth decrease (probably
> > more optimal).
> >
> > So changing path probably justify make-before-break and
> > LSP-ID change.
> >
> > Did I miss somthing ?
> >
> > Francois
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:kireeti@juniper.net]
> > Sent: lundi 4 novembre 2002 20:27
> > To: mpls@UU.NET
> > Subject: Re: Decreasing TE-LSP bandwidth, "interoperability issue" (fwd)
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I'd like to re-iterate Der-Hwa's question:
> >
> > On Thu, 31 Oct 2002, Der-Hwa Gan wrote:
> >
> > > It is perhaps more appropriate to ask what is the technical reason that a
> > > new ID is required to get bandwidth decrease?
> >
> > Is there a technical reason that someone can articulate?  Along the
> > same lines, is make-before-break needed on bandwidth *decrease*?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Kireeti.
> >