The MPLS WG Archive

["Don Fedyk" <dwfedyk@nortelnetworks.com>]

Title: RE: TE Extension of IGP

Indra

I disagree, even if you compute your LSPs offline the protection is
most useful on network. You can't possibly calculate all the failure
possibilities offline. The only exception is dedicated protection
circuity which is more expensive.

Don

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Indra.Widjaja [mailto:Indra.Widjaja@tddny.fujitsu.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 21, 2000 9:51 AM
> To: Bora Akyol
> Cc: HANSEN CHAN; mpls@UU.NET
> Subject: Re: TE Extension of IGP
>
>
> Bora Akyol wrote:
>
> > On the contrary,
> >
> > The IGP extensions are needed because most protection LSP
> calculation
> > happens on box and most vendors support automatic routing of LSPs.
>
> Actually, if you compute your working LSP offline, you would generally
> prefer
> to also compute the corresponding protection LSP offline, except for
> local repair.
>
> indra
>
> >
> >
> > Bora Akyol
> >
> > At 01:59 PM 4/20/00 -0400, you wrote:
> > >I am trying to understanding the use of TE extension of
> IGP in a MPLS
> > >network. From my understanding, you need TE extension when
> you're doing
> > >on-node path computation. However, since LSPs in today's
> MPLS network
> > >are usually computed off-node (in software tool), why
> would the use of
> > >TE extension be critical?
> > >
> > >Appreciate if someone can shed some light on this question.
> > >
> > >Thanks,
> > >Hansen
> > >
>
>
>