Subject: RE: CR-LDP Negotiation procedure

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 17:22:11 +0100

So LSR2 sends a lrm with P'. Suppose that P aren't a matter for LSR3 
and LSR4, but they receive a request for P'. 
LSR4 replies to the lrm with a lmm containing P' and LSR3 and LSR2 too. 
It could be suitable if LSR1 could know that P are a problem only for 
LSR2 and reroute the path in this way LSR1-LSR2'-LSR3-LSR4 with LSR2' a 
LSR probably able to support P (in LSR1 opinion). Is there a way to do 
this?

-----Original Message-----
From: jh [SMTP:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, December 06, 1999 3:53 PM
To: Freschi, Riccardo
Cc: jh; mpls
Subject: CR-LDP Negotiation procedure

[email-masked] writes:

 >   - LSR2 sends a lrm to LSR3 containing the parameters P, although 
LSR2
 >  can't support x,

no, if an lsr can't support a negotiable parameter value, it replaces it
with a value it can support before forwarding the request.

-- juha

---

From: "Ravindra M. Lambi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 12:38:59 -0500

Hello Riccardo,

Ravindra M. Lambi
Ficon Technology, Inc.
E-mail: [email-masked]
Web: www.ficon-tech.com

----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, December 06, 1999 11:22 AM
Subject: RE: CR-LDP Negotiation procedure

> LSR probably able to support P (in LSR1 opinion). Is there a way to do
One way of doing this through configured policy saying that always try
through LSR2 first, if path through LSR2 can not support P, then try through
LSR2'. Because path having LSR2 may be least expensive  path then LSR2',
which may be more expensive.

Regards,
Ravi.