The MPLS WG Archive

[Carlos Patriawan <carlos@carlos.net>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Nic Neate" <Nic.Neate@dataconnection.com>
To: "'David Charlap'" <David.Charlap@marconi.com>; "IETF MPLS List"
<mpls@UU.NET>
Sent: Friday, May 07, 2004 7:58 AM
Subject: RE: FW: Fast Reroute question


>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Charlap [mailto:David.Charlap@marconi.com]
> > Sent: Friday, May 07, 2004 3:10 PM
> > To: IETF MPLS List
> > Subject: Re: FW: Fast Reroute question
> >
> >
> > What I'm still not clear on, however, is how a merge point
> > can identify
> > which protected LSP (arriving on a normal interface)
> > corresponds to what
> > protected LSP (arriving through a bypass).
> >
> > It would seem that all LSPs in the same session with the same
> > LSP ID are
> > assumed to be be backups of one another.  But it seems that
> > there can be
> > situations where this will match when the LSPs don't have a primary/
> > backup relationship (for example, if extended tunnel ID of
> > zero is used
> > to signal a many-to-one multicast LSP - which is perfectly valid.)
> >
>
> Right, I see your point.  This is an issue with the SenderTemplate
specific
> merge rules then.
>
> Note from section 7.1.1 of the FRR draft that LSPs in the same session
with
> differing SenderTemplates are only merged if their LSP IDs, outgoing
> interfaces, next hops, and downstream EROs are identical.

What is in the case of both Path-Specific & Sender Template method, if
-ERO object is not present (since it's not mandatory)
-ERO has loose object

or does it mean ERO(with all strict object presents)
is mandatory/required if FRR is signalled ?


Carlos