The MPLS WG Archive

[Jim Boyle <jboyle@juniper.net>]

Sorry for the strange subject on the last email, had to have someone
forward me Curtis's email. The subject is corrected here.

On Thu, 14 Nov 2002, Jim Boyle wrote:

>
>
> > 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
>
>
>