Subject: Clarification about Link Protection Type (gmpls-routing-09.txt)

From: "Yumiko kawashima" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2004 00:19:28 +0900

Hello everyone,

Please clarify the description about Link Protection Type.

Section 2.2 of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-routing-09.txt (*1) seems to tell that
"Links of higher protection ranks than desired in PATH message can be
assigned for the LSP".

However, page 21 of RFC3471 (*2) seems to imply that
"Links of the only protection rank desired in PATH message can be
assigned for the LSP".

Which interpretation is appropriate?

Thanks,
-Yumiko

****
Reference:

*1  draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-routing-09.txt
     2.2. Link Protection Type

    This information is
    organized in a hierarchy where typically the minimum acceptable
    protection is specified at path instantiation and a path selection
    technique is used to find a path that satisfies at least the minimum
    acceptable protection.  Protection schemes are presented in order
    from lowest to highest protection.

*2 page 21 of RFC3471

   Link Flags:
     More than one bit may be set to
     indicate when multiple protection types are acceptable.  When
     multiple bits are set and multiple protection types are
     available, the choice of protection type is a local (policy)
     decision.