Subject: Re: draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-lsp-tunnel-06.txt

From: George Swallow <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 15:43:29 -0400

Fran -

> > I added some discussion in section 2.2 on policy processing on Path
> > messages.  I didn't want to be too pendantic since this is a matter of
> > local policy and not part of the protocol.  If other folks think this
> > needs further explaining I can add some more.
> 
> What's there should be fine. You might want to explicitly call out the
> fact that it IS a matter of (local) policy. Especially since the 
> POLICY_DATA gets mentioned, and that object is opaque to the RSVP module
> on the LSR. 

In response to your comment I've reworded the first sentence the last
paragraph on page 10 (in section 2.2) to:

 Routers along the path may use the setup and hold priorities along
 with SENDER_TSPEC and any POLICY_DATA objects contained in Path
 messages as input to policy control.

And in section 2.5, the fourth paragraph to:

 A similar situation can arise when one wants to increase the bandwidth
 of a TE tunnel.  The new reservation will be for the full amount
 needed, but the actual allocation needed is only the delta between the
 new and old bandwidth.  If policy is being applied to PATH messages by
 intermediate nodes, then a PATH message requesting too much bandwidth
 will be rejected.  In this situation simply increasing the bandwidth
 request without changing the SENDER_TEMPLATE, could result in a tunnel
 being torn down, depending upon local policy. 

> Where the TSPEC, setup and hold priorities could actually be
> used by the LSR, the POLICY_DATA can really only be processed by a
> policy entity.

Of course the policy entity could be just another module in the LSR.

...George

==================================================================
George Swallow       Cisco Systems                   (978) 244-8143
                     250 Apollo Drive
                     Chelmsford, Ma 01824