Subject: [mpls] New Draft Notification: draft-dong-mpls-rsvp-te-plr-designation-00

From: Jie Dong <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 10:07:50 +0800

Dear all, 

We have submitted a new internet draft "Designation of PLRs in RSVP-TE Fast
Reroute"

The URL is:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dong-mpls-rsvp-te-plr-designation-00

The abstract is as follows: 

This document defines RSVP-TE extensions which enable the ingress node to
designate particular LSRs along the path as Points of Local Repair (PLRs) of
the protected LSP, and further indicate the protection type of each PLR.
These mechanisms could enhance the control over the establishment of backup
LSPs, and also could save the resources needed for establishing and
maintaining unnecessary backup LSPs.

Any comments and suggestions are appreciated.

Best regards,
Jie

---

From: venkatesan mahalingam <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 17:29:48 +0530

Hi,
This draft is good in selecting the PLRs in the initial LSP setup itself.
But can this draft handle the dynamic PLR node change?
Do you have any thought on constrcuting the new TLVs to send the new EROs in
the established LSP to indicate the new PLR nodes?

Do you really think that administrator should know about all the transit
nodes of the LSP? I think, this is possible with the help of CSPF but
collecting the informations about transit node's resources and other
informations may be tough.

Thanks,
Venkat.
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 7:37 AM, Jie Dong <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>

-- 
Best Regards,
Venkatesan Mahalingam.

---

From: venkatesan mahalingam <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 11:05:19 +0530

> Do you have any thought on constrcuting the new TLVs to send the new EROs
> in the established LSP to indicate the new PLR nodes?
>

-- 
Best Regards,
Venkatesan Mahalingam.

---

From: Jie Dong <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 16:21:04 +0800

Dear Venkat,

Thanks for your comments, and please see my replies with [Jie].

                Hi,
                This draft is good in selecting the PLRs in the initial LSP
setup itself. But can this draft handle the dynamic PLR node change?
                Do you have any thought on constrcuting the new TLVs to send
the new EROs in the established LSP to indicate the new PLR nodes?

[Jie] Good question. In this version we mainly describes the PLR designation
during the initialization of LSP. For dynamic PLR change after setup, we
would like to hear some voice from operators. If they need this dynamic
function, we can provide it through some further extensions. Your
suggestions on this are really appreciated.
                
                Do you really think that administrator should know about all
the transit nodes of the LSP? I think, this is possible with the help of
CSPF but collecting the informations about transit node's resources and
other informations may be tough.

[Jie] In some scenarios the administrators may explicitly specify the entire
path of the LSP, in other cases they may explicitly specify a portion of the
path, and in both cases they can designate the PLRs based on their knowledge
about the network. So knowing all the transit nodes is not a MUST for PLR
designation. As long as they know some nodes along the path, they could
choose some of them as PLRs. The path may be determined using CSPF, or just
based on planning and policy. 

Best regards,
Jie

________________________________

        From: venkatesan mahalingam [mailto:[email-masked]]
        Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 1:35 PM
        To: Jie Dong; mpls
        Subject: Re: [mpls] New Draft Notification:
draft-dong-mpls-rsvp-te-plr-designation-00

                Hi,
                This draft is good in selecting the PLRs in the initial LSP
setup itself. But can this draft handle the dynamic PLR node change?
                Do you have any thought on constrcuting the new TLVs to send
the new EROs in the established LSP to indicate the new PLR nodes?
                
                Do you really think that administrator should know about all
the transit nodes of the LSP? I think, this is possible with the help of
CSPF but collecting the informations about transit node's resources and
other informations may be tough.
                
                Thanks,
                Venkat.

                On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 7:37 AM, Jie Dong
<[email-masked]> wrote:

                        Dear all,
                       
                        We have submitted a new internet draft "Designation
of PLRs in RSVP-TE Fast
                        Reroute"
                       
                        The URL is:

                       
                        This document defines RSVP-TE extensions which
enable the ingress node to
                        designate particular LSRs along the path as Points
of Local Repair (PLRs) of
                        the protected LSP, and further indicate the
protection type of each PLR.
                        These mechanisms could enhance the control over the
establishment of backup
                        LSPs, and also could save the resources needed for
establishing and
                        maintaining unnecessary backup LSPs.

                        Best regards,
                        Jie

                --
                Best Regards,
                Venkatesan Mahalingam.

        --
        Best Regards,
        Venkatesan Mahalingam.