Subject: Re: Hierarchical Tunnel Establishment in RSVP-TE

From: Kireeti Kompella <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 23:33:02 -0700 (PDT)

Hi Robert,

> If you only can specify router_ids from FA-LSP in the ERO from A to F in the
> case where there is more then one B-E LSP advertised as a link you don't have
> too much of control which one to pick.

Actually, the router ids are just the default.  You can IP-number each
B-E LSP differently, and thus have full control (at the cost of a few
IP addresses).

> Therefor I would be in favour of defining new ERO sub-object to allow
> additionof the FA-LSP id for the more granular path selection control
> from A point of view.

You would also have to advertise the FA-LSP ids into the IGP so that
A can use that when signalling.

Kireeti.

---

From: Robert Raszuk <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 23:48:58 -0700

Hi Kireeti,

> B-E LSP differently, and thus have full control (at the cost of a few

I knew you were going to propose this :) just after hitting send button. And I
think that this is a valid option. Maybe just not very elegant one from IP
address usage and configuration overhead point of view.

> A can use that when signalling.

Yes that's the price you would need to pay for the mentioned above elegancy.

It would be interesting to hear what would be user's opinion on this.

R.

> Kireeti Kompella wrote: