Re: [PWE3] PW Update and PW Redundancy

[Mark Townsley <townsley at cisco.com>]

Yang Yang wrote:
>  Hello all,
>    The bandwidth of the underlying tunnel may not be bigger enough to 
> set up a redundant PW.  In this case, it may be good to only update 
> the traffic profile of the PW.
This doesn't make much sense - A redundant PW doesn't use any bandwidth 
until the old PW is torn down.

- Mark
>  
>     Best Regards!
>        Yang
>
> On Dec 4, 2007 8:53 AM, HENDERICKX Wim 
> <wim.henderickx at alcatel-lucent.be 
> <mailto:wim.henderickx at alcatel-lucent.be>> wrote:
>
>     Mark, I think this indeed a good alternative according to me.
>
>     -----Original Message-----
>     From: Mark Townsley [mailto:townsley at cisco.com
>     <mailto:townsley at cisco.com>]
>     Sent: dinsdag 4 december 2007 1:46
>     To: pwe3
>     Subject: [PWE3] PW Update and PW Redundancy
>
>
>     If PW Update is a "make before break" model, why not just setup a
>     redundant PW ala                    
>     draft-muley-pwe3-redundancy-00.txt
>     and then kill the old PW after?
>
>     - Mark
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     pwe3 mailing list
>     pwe3 at ietf.org <mailto:pwe3 at ietf.org>
>     https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
>     <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     pwe3 mailing list
>     pwe3 at ietf.org <mailto:pwe3 at ietf.org>
>     https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
>     <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3>


_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3 at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3