Subject: [CCAMP] UPSTREAM_TSPEC usage in draft-ietf-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-bis

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 17:13:01 +0800

Hi Authors

As descirbed in this document, the UPSTREAM_TSPEC will not used in the 
PATH message.

So we defined another object call RESVER_TSPCE to deal with the asymmetric 
bandwidth in associated bidirectional LSP scenarios in the draft 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-01.

According to the on-line discussion in IETF80, we need to check if the 
UPSTREAM_TSPEC object can be used in both co-routed and associated 
applications.

Lou Berger: a technical question, upstream TSPEC instead of a new TSPEC. 
It would be good to have Attila’s input on compatibility with asymmetric 
BW rfc/bis. 
Attila Takacs: I'm not entirely sure that we can use the same fields this 
case.
Lou Berger: I think this is also question for existing implementations. As 
to whether or not they would get confused by having the upstream TSPEC, in 
a path message that does not contain the upstream label. The BNF 
definition requires the TSPEC present if the label is also present. So 
what would happen to an existing implementation receives path message, 
which contains the TSPEC but not the label.
Attila Takacs: for this use case we may need a different field. I will 
need to check and comment on the list.

Can we enlarge the scope of the UPSTREAM_TSPEC object using a different 
field, or just keep the definition unchanged?

Thanks

Fei