The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2003-Jul> msg00073



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

Suggested improvements to the Path-Specific merge rules in draft- ietf-mpls-rsvp-lsp-fastreroute-03

  • From: Alia Atlas <aatlas@avici.com>
  • Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 03:11:22 -0400
  • Cc: Der-Hwa Gan <dhg@juniper.net>, Nic Neate <nhn@dataconnection.com>, "'swallow@cisco.com'" <swallow@cisco.com>, "'jpv@cisco.com'" <jpv@cisco.com>, "'dcooper@gblx.net'" <dcooper@gblx.net>, "'mjork@avici.com'" <mjork@avici.com>, "'mpls@uu.net'" <mpls@UU.NET>

At 05:41 PM 7/15/2003, Ping Pan wrote:
> >      1.  If only one of the Path messages is for the protected LSP
> >          (a protected LSP is one originated from this node, or with
> >       the FAST_REROUTE object, or without the DETOUR object) then this
> >       becomes the chosen Path message.  Quit.
> >
> >      2.  If more than one protected LSPs found, eliminate detours (those
> >       with the DETOUR object) from consideration.
> >
> >      3.  From the remaining set of Path messages, eliminate from 
> consideration
> >       any that traverse nodes that others want to avoid.
> >
> >      4.  If several still remain, it is a local decision to
> >          choose which one to forward.
> >
>
>Der-Hwa,
>
>I think this is a whole lot better. If Nic and Alia have no problem,
>let's fold the new rules into the next version.

Ping & Der-Hwa,

I certainly agree with simplifying the rules to what is logically 
necessary.  This sounds good to me.

Alia


>Thanks!
>
>- Ping