Subject: Re: Re: draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-lsp-tunnel-08.txt

From: Anouk Rocher <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 22:23:17 -0400

George,

Thanks for the data-point. Would you be able to comment on the
other point I was trying to understand - that of the "vanilla"
way of supporting a bandwidth guarantee. Earlier in the thread
David suggested that both controlled-load and guaranteed-service
need to be supported by a node. 

But clearly, for web-traffic, the pre-dominant portion of the
traffic in public networks, one most work better than the other
(or atleast be easier for a network operator to use).

Anouk.

________________________________________________
Get your own "800" number
Voicemail, fax, email, and a lot more
http://www.ureach.com/reg/tag

---- On Thu, 12 Jul 2001, George Swallow ([email-masked]) wrote:

> > Second, is it legal to for an intermediate LSR to use the TSPEC and
> ADSPEC
> > parameters on the forward path rather than the reverse path? I was
> thinking
> > of this in order to not lose available resources during the forward
> path
> > which may not be around when the messages start coming back from the
> > egress.
> 
> That what our implementation does.  We consider it a matter of policy
> not to forward a Path message if the T-SPEC can't be met.  We also set
> the resources aside until either the Path times out or a RESV message
> makes the formal reservation.
> 
> ...George
> 
> ==================================================================
> George Swallow       Cisco Systems                   (978) 244-8143
>                      250 Apollo Drive
>                      Chelmsford, Ma 01824