Subject: Re: LCAS and GMPLS

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 09:05:03 +0200

hi

[snip]

>> Can you say why you think this is so?
>> Looking at draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-e2e-signaling-03.txt I do not
>> see anything that forces this limitation. In fact, it would be hard to
>> offer 1:n protection with such a scheme.

> In my understanding, the ASSOCIATION ID of ASSOCIATION Object only
> relates protected LSP and protecting LSPs.

this object includes a Association Type field (16 bits) that indicates the
type of association being identified, for recovery purposes the Type is 1;

so in the present case (i.e. base VC grouping) a new Type value would be
defined

[snip]

---

From: Igor Bryskin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 07:31:33 -0700 (PDT)

Dimitri, all

[email-masked] wrote:

hi

[snip]

IB>> Agree 100%

Igor

[snip]

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com