Subject: Applicability Statement: Extensions to RSVP....

From: Digendra <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 20:27:43 +0530

Hello Dan and George,

I am facing an issue which resembles the subject of your discussion
given below.
The issue is:

I want to support the customer edge router using ATM connection to the
MPLS
aware ISP domain edge router. The customer edge router has Int-serv RSVP
over ATM
and the ISP domain has MPLS RSVP over ATM. This requires the
interworking
between Int-serv RSVP and MPLS RSVP over ATM.
I am wondering if there is a standard solution for it otherwise what can
be the good solution for
it which takes care of later evolving interoperability issues also.

please suggest a solution.

Thanks and Regards,
Digendra

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

   * From: [email-masked] (Daniel Awduche)
   * Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 00:57:38 -0400 (EDT)
   * Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
     (Daniel Awduche)
   * In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]> from "George
     Swallow" at Aug 26, 99 02:04:03 pm

George,

OK. Here's what I've inserted...

--

This applicability statement concerns only the use of RSVP to set up
unicast LSP-tunnels.  It is noted that not all of the features
described in RFC2205 are required to support the instantiation and
maintenance of LSP-tunnels. Aspects related to the support of other
features and capabilities of RSVP by an implementation that also
supports LSP-tunnels are beyond the scope of this document. However,
support of such additional features and capabilities should not
introduce new security vulnerabilities in environments that only use
RSVP to set up LSP-tunnels.

Cheers,
/Dan

George Swallow said:
>
> Dan -
>
> |Lastly, while concuring that a set of guidelines for implementers of
> |RSVP software is necessary and timely, I disagree, however, that the
> |applicability statement for RSVP-Tunnel is the appropriate avenue to
> |postulate such guidelines.
>
> I would suggest that we add some text to say that this document
> concerns the use of RSVP to set up unicast LSP tunnels.  It is noted
> that not all of the features of RFC2205 are required in order to
> support LSP tunnels.  What other RSVP features are supported by an
> implementation which supports LSP tunnels is beyond the scope of this
> document.
>
> ...George
>