Subject: Admin Status object and Style object

From: Apratim Mukherjee <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 11:50:44 -0500

Hi ,

A few questions on the Admin Status object and style of reservation in
Generalized RSVP-TE.
Lets assume that SE style is not required in GMPLS network , and we are
using only FF style .In the FF style , lets say that there are lsps 1 , 2 ,
3 and 4 between an ingress A and an egress B . (Of course this is possible
only if multiple lsps are allowed in an FF style session in Generalized
RSVP-Te but there is no specific mention in the draft that this is
prohibited ).

Now , egress B wants to delete lsp 2 only . It appears that this is not
possible looking at the BNF of the Resv Message where there is one Admin
Status _PER_ Resv Message as opposed to 
One Admin Status per _FLOW_DESC_ which would solve the FF  problem mentioned
above or 
One Admin Status per _FILTER_DESC_ which would solve the problem of
indicating which lsp is going down for both SE and FF . 

Is the assumption that for all Gmpls constructed sessions using RSVP-Te
there will always be a single FF lsp per session and no other combination is
possible , e.g multiple lsps in _ONE_ FF Session or mutiple lsps in one SE
style session ? 

I could find only one thread of some relevance to this discussion in the
archives and so am attaching that with this mail .I would be grateful if
someone could clear up this doubt . 

Thanks
Apratim 

============================================================================
=====================
< Attached mail from archive > 

Re: position of ADMIN_STATUS object in RESV message

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

To: "Saha, Sayandeb" <[email-masked]> 
Subject: Re: position of ADMIN_STATUS object in RESV message 
From: Eric Gray <[email-masked]> 
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 10:40:31 -0500 
Cc: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]> 
References:
<[email-masked]> 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Sayan,

    I may be looking at this somewhat simply, but I know of no reason why a
transit node would need to disable an SE LSP because one of the reservations
sharing the LSP at that node sets its admin status to down.  Even in the
case
where the D bit is set, this should have the effect of removing the transit
node
from the particular reservation being torn down, rather than tearing down
all
reservations sharing resources at that transit node.

You wrote:

> Hi,
> Section 10.1 of draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-05.txt describes the
> admin_status as not being a
> part of the <flow descriptor list> in the RESV message.
> This works fine for the FF style of reservation.
> But for the SE style of reservation if just one filter is taken out by
> setting the D bit in admin status,
> all others must go down because the admin_status applies for the entire
RESV
> instead of just the particular
> filter in question.
> Or for that matter if only one filter's state(LSP) is taken
administratively
> down( by setting A bit), it will now apply to all filters
> Is this intended? Or is it the optical world will never do SE style
> reservations? Am I missing something here?
> -Sayan

--
Eric Gray (mailto:[email-masked])
http://www.mindspring.com/~ewgray