Subject: [Isis-wg] Re: [OSPF] Re: [Fwd: [mpls] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-number-0-bw-te-lsps-02.txt]

From: Curtis Villamizar <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 20:48:08 -0500

In message <[email-masked]>
JP Vasseur writes:
>  
> Other attributes such as affinity should be used to not allows 0-bw  
> TE LSP to traverse a specific link. This TLV is only used to report  
> the number of such TE LSPs traversing the link.
>  
> Thanks.
>  
> JP.

The provider already has the necessary tools that can be used to
accomplish this.  If a general purpose tool (attributes and
affinities) is available which accomplishes something a special
purpose tool to accomplish the same thing is not needed.

Such a tool would only be useful if the administration of the MPLS
midpoint (where the attribute is set) had no control over the
administration of the MPLS ingress or a border that is doing route
computation (where the affinity is set).  I don't see any anticipated
real world deployment that would benefit from this.  If you do, then
please explain the deployment scenario.

Curtis

_______________________________________________
Isis-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg

---

From: Curtis Villamizar <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 21:43:25 -0500

In message <[email-masked]>
JP Vasseur writes:
>  
> Hi Curtis,
>  
> On Nov 30, 2006, at 8:48 PM, Curtis Villamizar wrote:
>  
> >
> not sure to see your point here ... I was mentioning that the aim of  
> this TLV was not to avoid some links.
> Looks like you're saying the same thing.
>  
> JP.
>  
> > Curtis

My point was regarding a mention in that conversation that the value
of zero might mean no zero-BW LSPs have been set up or none are
allowed.  Looks like I cut the wrong paragraph out of the
conversation.

The existing link attributes and affinity are sufficient to indicate
the condition that no zero-BW LSPs are allowed if the administration
of that network decides to use an attribute for that purpose.

I'm agreeing with you.

Curtis

[email-masked]> 
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 21:43:25 -0500
From: Curtis Villamizar <[email-masked]>
Cc: George Swallow <[email-masked]>, [email-masked], [email-masked],
	[email-masked], [email-masked], Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>,
	Acee Lindem <[email-masked]>
Subject: [Isis-wg] Re: [OSPF] Re: [Fwd: [mpls] WG Last Call on
	draft-ietf-mpls-number-0-bw-te-lsps-02.txt] 
Reply-To: [email-masked]

In message <[email-masked]>
JP Vasseur writes:
>  
> Hi Curtis,
>  
> On Nov 30, 2006, at 8:48 PM, Curtis Villamizar wrote:
>  
> >
> not sure to see your point here ... I was mentioning that the aim of  
> this TLV was not to avoid some links.
> Looks like you're saying the same thing.
>  
> JP.
>  
> > Curtis

My point was regarding a mention in that conversation that the value
of zero might mean no zero-BW LSPs have been set up or none are
allowed.  Looks like I cut the wrong paragraph out of the
conversation.

The existing link attributes and affinity are sufficient to indicate
the condition that no zero-BW LSPs are allowed if the administration
of that network decides to use an attribute for that purpose.

I'm agreeing with you.

Curtis