The MPLS WG Archive

[Ina Minei <ina@juniper.net>]

On Thu, 11 Mar 2004, Adrian Farrel wrote:

> 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.
>
	I am glad to hear you find the proposal useful.

> 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?

	Currently I would like to keep this at a per-session level. If I
want graceful, seamless behaviour, I want it for all my lsps, not just
for some of them :)

			Ina

>
> 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
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>