The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2003-Oct> msg00107



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

Suggested improvements to the Fast Reroute MIB definition in draft-ietf-mpls-fastreroute-mib-01

  • From: Markus Jork <mjork@avici.com>
  • Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 11:58:49 -0400
  • cc: "'riza.cetin@alcatel.be'" <riza.cetin@alcatel.be>, Cisco - Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau@cisco.com>, "'stefaan.de_cnodder@alcatel.be'" <stefaan.de_cnodder@alcatel.be>, Juniper - Der-Hwa Gan <dhg@juniper.net>, "'jvasseur@cisco.com'" <jvasseur@cisco.com>, "'mpls@uu.net'" <mpls@UU.NET>

> That leaves just one outstanding suggestion - that the protection method be
> configurable per-LSP in the mplsFrrConstTable, as supported by the FRR
> draft.  I look forward to hearing the outcome of your discussions with Tom.
> 
> Nic

My input to that discussion: the FRR draft does allow the ingress to
signal what protection method it wants. So obviously an implementation
could provide a per-LSP configuration option for this. I know of one
shipping implementation that already does this and another one for
which this per-LSP configuration is planned.
This suggests the MIB should support it.

Markus