Subject: RE: question on generalized MPLS signaling

From: Adrian Farrel <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 16:33:06 +0100

Hi Alan,

This issue becomes "simple" if the bearer tunnel used to carry the
bidirectional LSP is also bidirectional.  In fact, since one of the
requirements of this sort of bidirectional tunnel would appear to be that
the reverse path traverses exactly the same series of hops as the forward
path, the bearer tunnel MUST itself be bidirectional.

Regards,
Adrian
--
Adrian Farrel  mailto:[email-masked]
Network Convergence Group
Data Connection Ltd., Chester, UK
http://www.datcon.co.uk/
Tel: +44 (0) 1244 313440  Fax: +44 (0) 1244 312422

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Kullberg, Alan [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2000 3:13 PM
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: question on generalized MPLS signaling
>
>
>I have been reading draft-ashwood-generalized-mpls-signaling-00.txt
>and draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-hierarchy-00.txt and have a question.  When
>a bidirectional LSP is being signaled, a label stack may be required
>in the reverse direction.  Can the method described in lsp-hierarchy
>be applied in the reverse direction?  If so, where does the "strict hop
>subsequence" come from?  For RSVP, it could come from a record
>route object, but for CR-LDP, there is no such record route TLV.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Alan
>
>