The MPLS WG Archive

[Eric Gray <egray@westridgenetworks.com>]

Loa,

	I guess that depends on whether you consider it is the traffic
which has a higher priority or the setup request.  You can account for
the fact that completing an in-progress transaction has a naturally
higher priority that starting that same (or a similar) transaction by
using setup and holding priority, but does anyone actually support the
use of distinct setup and holding priority in both implementation and 
deployment? 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-mpls@UU.NET [mailto:owner-mpls@UU.NET] On Behalf Of Loa
Andersson
> Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 6:19 PM
> To: mpls@UU.NET
> Subject: wg last call soft preemption question
> 
> All,
> 
> in the motiviation (section 2) for the
> draft-ietf-mpls-soft-preemption-02.txt it
> is stated that through the preemption as defined in rfc3209 traffic
> on the "to be preempted LSP" is (unnecessarily) abruptly preempted.
> The transit traffic is disregarded.
> I guess this is true, but isn't the (the most common) case here that
> the preemting LSP has a higher priority than the preemepted, and if
> you withhold the preemption, waiting for the traffic on the preempted
> LSP to be taken care of, you will waste traffic with higher priority
> during that wait?
> 
> 
> /Loa
> 
> Loa Andersson
> +46 739 81 21 64