The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2003-Jul> msg00061



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

questions about draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-lsp-fastreroute-02.txt

  • From: Terry Lee <terrylee@huawei.com>
  • Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 16:34:00 +0800
  • Cc: mpls@UU.NET, "'prabakarts'" <prabakarts@future.futsoft.com>, Terry Lee <TERRYLEEE@SOHU.COM>
  • Importance: Normal

Title: 邮件
But in section "6.1.2. Backup Path Identification: Path-Specific", it states :
     Thus, the backup paths use the same SESSION and SENDER_TEMPLATE
     objects as the ones used in the protected LSP. The presence of
     DETOUR object in Path messages signifies a backup path; the
     presence of FAST_REROUTE object and/or the "local protection
     requested" flag in the SESSION_ATTRIBUTE object indicates a
     protected LSP.
It seems that the protected LSP's PATH message doesn't include DETOUR object.
On the other hand, if the head-end LSR of the protected LSP doesn't include DETOUR object,
how do it control the establish the backup tunnels?
-----Original Message-----
From: Alia Atlas [mailto:aatlas@avici.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 3:34 AM
To: prabakarts@future.futsoft.com
Cc: 'Terry Lee'; mpls@UU.NET; 'prabakarts'
Subject: RE: questions about draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-lsp-fastreroute-02.txt

2.       should DETOUR object be contained in the head-end LSR in one-by-one technique? I think the answer is yes.
[PrabakarTS]  Yes, you are correct.

I may have misunderstood your question earlier.  If you mean should the DETOUR object be included in the Path message sent from the head-end LSP for the detour LSP (as opposed to the primary LSP), then yes, absolutely.

Alia