Subject: LSTs, LSPs and the recovery framework draft.

From: "David Allan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 15:55:29 -0400

Fiffi, Vishal:

Given the discussion I've had on this on the list, and a desire to bring
this distinction to the framework draft, I find a read of the framework
draft neatly skirts the issue of distinguishing mp2p tributaries from the
whole tree by almost universally referring to "paths" instead of LSPs. 

This would suggest that only a few tweaks to the document would make me very
happy:

1) An explicit definition of "path" (sect 2.2.1) in the context of the
document as existing between a PSL and a PML and possibly being overlaid on
a mp2p LSP.

2) In 2.2 replace LSP with traffic:
   In protection switching, revertive mode requires the LSP/traffic to be
   switched back to a preferred path when the fault on that path is
   cleared.

3) In 3.5 replace LSP with path
   Path Degraded (PD) is a fault that indicates to MPLS-based recovery
   schemes/mechanisms that the LSP/path has connectivity, but that the
   quality of the connection is unacceptable. 

   Link Failure (LF) is an indication from a lower layer that the link
   over which the LSP/path is carried has failed. 

   Link Degraded (LD) is an indication from a lower layer that the
   link over which the LSP/path is carried is performing below an
   acceptable level. 

4) In 3.8.3  replace LSP with path.

    3.8.3 Reverting to Preferred LSP/path
    ....The controlled rearrangement of LSP/paths can also be used to
satisfy traffic
    engineering requirements for load balancing across an MPLS domain.

And we're done. ;-)

Dave

---------------------------------
Sr. Advisor Access Evolution
[email-masked]