The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2002-Nov> msg00087



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

the complete mail

  • From: Jim Boyle <jboyle@juniper.net>
  • Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 15:56:16 -0800 (PST)
  • cc: <curtis@fictitious.org>, <egray@celoxnetworks.com>, Der-Hwa Gan <dhg@juniper.net>
  • X-X-Sender: <jboyle@maroon.jnpr.net>



> On 13 Nov 2002 19:53:16 GMT, Curtis wrote:
>
> To:      Der-Hwa Gan <dhg@juniper.net>
> cc:      "Gray, Eric" <egray@celoxnetworks.com>, mpls@UU.NET
> From:    curtis@fictitious.org (Curtis Villamizar)
> Subject: Re: Decreasing TE-LSP bandwidth, "interoperability issue" (fwd)
>
>
>  <snip - dhg's email>
>
> If we can't agree that one approach is better, then we are stuck with
> the current situation.  The ingress can either change the LSP-ID or
> not change the LSP-ID and just decrease the bandwidth.
>
> <snip - state differences trivial>
>
> If we still have two methods available to the ingress, then we have to
> make sure the midpoints can handle both.  If so, then the only thing
> that we should add is (currently implied if the ingress can do it)
> that the midpoint LSR must be prepared to handle a decrease in
> bandwidth on an LSP.
>
> Curtis
>

Curtis, this sounds like the best approach.

Is this the consensus?  How do we proceed?

regards,

Jim Boyle