The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2004-Mar> msg00032



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

draft-minei-mpls-ldp-planned-restart-00.txt &draft-ali-ccamp-rsvp-hello-gr-admin-00.txt

  • From: Rahul Aggarwal <rahul@juniper.net>
  • Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 17:26:36 -0800 (PST)
  • cc: "'Ina Minei'" <ina@juniper.net>, "'MPLS wg'" <mpls@UU.NET>, "" <tian@redback.com>, "'Loa Andersson'" <loa@pi.se>, "'George Swallow'" <swallow@cisco.com>, "" <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>, "'Reshad Rahman'" <rrahman@cisco.com>, "" <dprairie@cisco.com>


Hi Zafar,

[snipped]

>
> Thanks for your reply. We have a similar draft in CCAMP that formalized
> procedure for disabling RSVP GR (and Hello) (see,
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ali-ccamp-rsvp-hello-gr-admin-
> 00.txt for details).
>
> The requirements/ motivations for the two drafts in question are
> similar.

The difference is that RSVP-TE already supports the ability to toggle the
graceful restart capability of a router by including/excluding the restart
capability object in RSVP-TE hellos. This can be done without breaking the
neighbor relationship between the adjacent routers.

rahul

>
> Thanks
>
> Regards... Zafar
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: owner-mpls@UU.NET [mailto:owner-mpls@UU.NET] On Behalf
> >Of Ina Minei
> >Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 6:35 PM
> >To: zafar ali
> >Cc: 'MPLS wg'; tian@redback.com; 'Rahul Aggarwal'; 'Loa
> >Andersson'; 'George Swallow'
> >Subject: Re: draft-minei-mpls-ldp-planned-restart-00.txt
> >
> >
> >
> >	Zafar,
> >
> >	3478 details the procedures for doing graceful restart
> >in the case where the capability will be used irrespective of
> >the cause of the crash.
> >
> >	The proposed enhancement deals with a situation where
> >the operator wants to perform graceful restart only when he is
> >doing a planned upgrade. Why? Because a planned upgrade is a
> >controled environment. This is mostly a comfort-level issue
> >for the operator and a good way to let him convince himself
> >that the feature is working as expected. Many operators are
> >wary of graceful restart, but would really like to see
> >graceful upgrades.
> >
> >				Ina
> >
> >On Tue, 9 Mar 2004, zafar ali wrote:
> >
> >> 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
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>