Subject: Comment on draft-ietf-mpls-crlsp-modify-02

From: Olivier Dugeon <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 09:54:28 +0200

Hi all,

In section 4.1 : "Ri assigns a new label for the Label Request Message."

I think this is necessary only for re-routing i.e. ER-TLV changes. For
over traffic parameters modification, i think it's preferable to keep
the existing label. Because the route doesn't change, it's more simple
to keep the existing label (which reflect the path of the LSPID) than
change label. Then, you doesn't need to send a Label Release Message.
But, to ensure a three-way handshake of the protocol, it must be safe to
send a Notification Message instead of a Release Message in this context
to confirm the modification by ingress LSR.

In this fashion, crlsp modification is much closer than it can be
possible with RM Cells (Ressource Management Cells) in ATM network.

In section 9 : 

Why references of crldp and ldp are not up to date ? Where i can find
draft-ash-qos-routing-00.txt ? is the same as
draft-ash-te-qos-routing-01.txt ?

Thanks,

Olivier
-- 
 FTR&D/DAC/CPN
 Technopole Anticipa     | mailto:[email-masked]
 2, Avenue Pierre Marzin | Phone:  +(33) 2 96 05 28 80
 F-22307 LANNION         | Fax:    +(33) 2 96 05 18 52

---

From: Shen Gangxiang <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 18:47:53 +0800

I agree with Olivier's point.

Gangxiang 

-----Original Message-----
From: Olivier Dugeon
To: [email-masked]
Sent: 11/10/00 3:54 PM
Subject: Comment on draft-ietf-mpls-crlsp-modify-02

Hi all,

In section 9 : 

Thanks,

Olivier

---

From: Adrian Farrel <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 20:55:15 +0100

Hi Olivier,

You make a good point, and ideally this is what would be done.  

We would need to define the procedure for propagating the second Label
Request (this is quite easy to define), since the current LDP spec allows
the second LSR to say "I have a label for that FEC" and simply return a
Label Mapping.

Note, however, that it will not always be possible to provide the increased
bandwidth using the same label.  In this case the existing modify function
will be required.  Further, I don't believe there is anything in the modify
draft that prohibits the use of the same label on both the initial and the
modified LSP.

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

>From: Olivier Dugeon [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 8:54 AM
>To: [email-masked]