Subject: [mpls] Comments on draft-shen-mpls-rsvp-setup-protection-00

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 11:20:11 +0200

Hi Authors,
 
I'm wondering about the use case of this solution.
Do you have some feedbacks some provider where RSVP-TE tunnel setup is an issue ?
 
Globally, if you are setting up a new tunnel, it doesn't really matter if it takes an extra 2 or 3 seconds to establish it on a new path.
Regarding an established path, FRR mechanism permit traffic to be protected during failure inside the LSP.
Path Err sent to the ingress that is recomputing a new path, if path can't be setup because chosen path is not available (new link failure), it's not an issue as LSP is still on FRR and traffic is fine.
 
So I don't really see the use case and the value for this enhancement.
Could you explain your vision ?
 
Thanks,

Stephane Litkowski
FT/OF/DTF/DEX/DERX/EE IP/TAC ENTREPRISE

Operational Engineering & Support IPTAC for RAEI network
tél. +33 2 23 28 49 83
[email-masked]

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.