The MPLS WG Archive

["Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>]

I concur with Eric's assessment.
This draft is adding to the function of 3478 to fill in a piece that is present in 3479.

While this may be understandably frustrating to the authors of 3479 who foresaw this need
(and many other needs) up front, The convergence of functionality is to be welcomed.

Ina, are you sure that the function is needed only on a per-session basis and that you
will not want to discriminate recovery per-LSP?

Cheers,
Adrian

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ina Minei" <ina@juniper.net>
To: "Eric Gray" <ewgray@graiymage.com>
Cc: "zafar ali" <zali@cisco.com>; "'MPLS wg'" <mpls@UU.NET>; <tian@redback.com>; "'Rahul
Aggarwal'" <rahul@juniper.net>; "'Loa Andersson'" <loa@pi.se>; "'George Swallow'"
<swallow@cisco.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 6:45 PM
Subject: Re: draft-minei-mpls-ldp-planned-restart-00.txt


>
> Eric,
>
> Correct, this draft applies to the procedures described in 3478
> and adds the capability to do graceful restart only for planned restarts.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Ina
>
>
>
> On Tue, 9 Mar 2004, Eric Gray wrote:
>
> > 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:
> >
> > > 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
> > >
> >
>
>