From: "manoj juneja" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 12:40:08 -0700

Hi David,
          It means that if incoming interface I1 can not allocate 100M
(may be its max. reservable bandwidth is < 100M) of bandwidth then the
LSP establishment will fail eventhough the senders that are reachable
through incoming interface I1 require much less than 100M . I mean to
say what if different interfaces (I1 and I2) have different max.
reservable bandwidth configured (say I1 has max. reservable bandwidth
as 20M and I2 has max reservable bandwidth as 200M). There may be
different senders connected (reachable through different routers) to
different routers may fall in same session without knowledge (if they
don't include extended tunnel Id).

Regards,
manoj.

manoj juneja wrote:
>
>If S1, S2 can be reachable through incoming interface I1 and require
>bandwidth 1M and 2M respectively. The senders S3, S4 falling under
>the same session (as of S1 and S2) require bandwidth 5M and 10M
>respectively but reachable through different incoming interface I2.
>Do I still need to reserve 10M on both the incoming interfaces (i.e.
>I1 and I2) ? Even though we are aware that only 2M (larger of S1,
>S2) will be utilized on I1. Why is it defined like this in the
>protocol ?

Because it's a single _SHARED_ reservation.  It's not four separate
reservations that happen to share resources where convenient.

When the egress router sends an SE-style Resv message, there is exactly
_ONE_ flowspec object transmitted, which covers _ALL_ of the filterspecs
in the flow descriptor.

What I don't understand is why you think you should put LSPs with
different incompatible resource requirements in the same session
together.

-- David

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp