"Mcdysan, David E" writes:
> "Pinning" an LSP to a specific component link was an intended use case
> from the prior draft not in the current list.
> Do need to think more about the means (configuration, signaling) of
> how this could be done. I will draft some text as to why an operator
> would want to do this.
I'd like to know why if an operator had N links with identical
characteristics that operator would need to pick a specific link.
If some of those links had different characteristics, then that is
another story. They should be advertised as different.
The only thing I can think of is an XRO functionality (exclude route
object used to insure disjoint loose paths, see RFC4874).
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
> > On Behalf Of Tony Li
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 3:30 AM
> > To: [email protected]; John E Drake
> > Cc: [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: composite link - candidate for respin, maybe
> > Hi Curtis,
> > > One is the abilit to move LSP from one component to another. In
> > > Tony's view that would not be possible because the LSP is nailed to
> > > one component, not a group with common attributes and a
> > specification
> > > of maximum dynamic.
> > Actually, I'm rather into flexibility. Some LSPs might be
> > pinned. Some might not.
> > Tony
rtgwg mailing list