Subject: RE: [Tsvwg] FW: draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-dste-00.txt - addressing comment on "relationship to RFC4206"

From: "Francois Le Faucheur \(flefauch\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 15:43:37 +0100

Hello,

One private comment I received following WGLC is that it would help the
reader if the relationship with RFC4206 was clarified.

To that end, I am proposing to extend text in section 3, 
by replacing:
"
In this document we provide a detailed description of the procedures in
the case where TE tunnels are already established. These procedures are
based on those defined in [LSP-HIER]. 
"
with
"
In this document we provide a detailed description of the procedures in
the case where TE tunnels are already established. These procedures are
based on those defined in [LSP-HIER]. The routing aspects discussed in
section 3 of [LSP-HIER] are not relevant here because those aim at
allowing the constraint based routing of end-to-end TE LSPs to take into
account the (aggregate) TE tunnels. In the present document, the
end-to-end RSVP reservations to be aggregated over the TE tunnels rely
on regular SPF routing. However, as already mentioned in [LSP-HIER], we
note that a TE Tunnel may be advertised into ISIS or OSPF, to be used in
normal SPF by nodes upstream of the Aggregator. This would affect SPF
routing and thus routing of end-to-end RSVP reservations. The control of
aggregation boundaries discussed in section 6 of [LSP-HIER] is also not
relevant here. This uses information exchanged in GMPLS protocols to
dynamically discover the aggregation boundary. In this document, TE
tunnels are pre-established, so that the aggregation boundary can be
easily inferred. The signaling aspects discussed in section 6.2 of
[LSP-HIER] apply to the establishment/termination of the aggregate TE
tunnels when this is triggered by GMPLS mechanisms (e.g. as a result of
an end-to-end TE LSP establishment request received at the aggregation
boundary) . As this document assumes pre-established tunnels, those
aspects are not relevant here. The signaling aspects discussed in
section 6.1 of [LSP-HIER] relate to the establishment/maintenance of the
end-to-end TE LSPs over the aggregate TE tunnel. This document describes
how to use the same procedures as those specified in section 6.1 of
[LSP-HIER], but for the establishment of end-to-end RSVP reservations
(instead of end-to-end TE LSPs) over the TE tunnels. This is covered
further in section 3 of the present document.
"

For memory:
"
[LSP-HIER] Kompella et al, Label Switched Paths (LSP) Hierarchy with
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering
(TE), RFC 4206
"

Let me know if you have any concerns or suggestions.

Francois

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