Re: [mpls] Updates to draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-graceful-shutdown

[Lou Berger <lberger at labn.net>]

Zafar,

In short, you don't need new error codes to support the upstream 
identification of type of reroute being indicated (node, interface, 
component, label).

This can be determined based on the ERROR_SPEC object and included 
TLVs.  This is already covered in the reroute draft.  I thought the 
text at the end of 2.1 of the reroute draft was sufficiently clear to 
indicate how one would do this with the existing error codes.  I 
guess some examples for each of the cases will make this more apparent.

looks like there are still open issues in the draft(s)...

Lou

At 12:34 PM 10/29/2008, Zafar Ali (zali) wrote:
> Hi Lou-
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ccamp at ops.ietf.org
> > [mailto:owner-ccamp at ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lou Berger
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 11:56 AM
> > To: Zafar Ali (zali)
> > Cc: Lou Berger; Adrian Farrel; ccamp at ops.ietf.org;
> > mpls at ietf.org; jpv at cisco.com; Anca Zamfir (ancaz); Newton, Jonathan
> > Subject: Re: Updates to draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-graceful-shutdown
> >
> > Zafar,
> >
> > Why does the document define new error codes (and why 4)?  Is
> > it that the reroute document isn't sufficient clear on how to
> > indicated each of the 4? Is it some other reason?
> >
>
> This is because headend may be able to compute alternate route
> ("reroute" action) for mb4b differently, depending on the resource under
> graceful shutdown, as detailed in the document. Hence one code is define
> for TE node, TE link, component link of a bundled TE link, and label
> resource, each.
>
> Thanks
>
> Regards... Zafar
>
> <snip>

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls