The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2004-Mar> msg00027



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

draft-minei-mpls-ldp-planned-restart-00.txt

  • From: Eric Gray <ewgray@GraIyMage.com>
  • Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 18:49:16 -0500
  • CC: "'MPLS wg'" <mpls@UU.NET>, tian@redback.com, "'Rahul Aggarwal'" <rahul@juniper.net>, ina@juniper.net, "'Loa Andersson'" <loa@pi.se>, "'George Swallow'" <swallow@cisco.com>
  • User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
  • X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
  • X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - host19.ipowerweb.com
  • X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - uu.net
  • X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [0 0] / [0 0]
  • X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - graiymage.com

Title:
Zafar,

    Actually, I can't be absolutely certain but, I think the question asked during
the MPLS WG meeting was why the procedures of RFC 3479 were not good
enough.  I also think the answer was that this draft applies to implementations
that would choose to support RFC 3478 - except that they only want to handle
a planned outage.

    Again, I can't be sure, but I think that this draft essentially adds the ability
inherent in RFC 3479 (support of a planned outage only mode) to RFC 3478.
I get that impression from reading the two RFCs and this draft. If correct, that
should answer your question.

--
Eric

zafar ali wrote:
Message

Hi Ina, Rahul and Albert,

 

I am not sure about motivation behind this draft. Why procedures in RFC 3478 are are NOT enough to address planned outages? This question was also raised at the last MPLS WG meeting but I did not hear any convincing answer.

 

Thanks

 

Regards... Zafar