Subject: [mpls] Comment is expected on draft-xu-mpls-rsvp-te-bidirection-00

From: xuxiaohu 41208 <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 03:41:57 +0800

Hi, all,

After the presentation of my draft “draft-xu-mpls-rsvp-te-bidirection-00.txt” on the MPLS session of IETF65, the WG chair suggested me to make further discussion in the mailing list.

My draft provides a easy method of establishing bidirectional TE tunnel. It only requires LERs to be upgraded to support binding object which is a little extension to current RSVP-TE.
Compared with the method of establishing bidirectional TE tunnel defined in GMPLS, there is no additional requirement on middle-hop LSRs, they only need to process the path and resv message with the unknown binding object transited transparently. In addition, there is no need for path message to be extended to assign label and the paths of two opposite tunnels to be bound can be different in topology.

Is it worthwhile to achieve bidirectional TE tunnel with little extension to RSVP-TE? Any comment is expected.

Xiaohu Xu

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