The MPLS WG Archive[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index] Re: draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-lsp-tunnel-08.txt
George, Thanks for the data-point. Would you be able to comment on the other point I was trying to understand - that of the "vanilla" way of supporting a bandwidth guarantee. Earlier in the thread David suggested that both controlled-load and guaranteed-service need to be supported by a node. But clearly, for web-traffic, the pre-dominant portion of the traffic in public networks, one most work better than the other (or atleast be easier for a network operator to use). Anouk. ________________________________________________ Get your own "800" number Voicemail, fax, email, and a lot more http://www.ureach.com/reg/tag ---- On Thu, 12 Jul 2001, George Swallow (swallow@cisco.com) wrote: > > Second, is it legal to for an intermediate LSR to use the TSPEC and > ADSPEC > > parameters on the forward path rather than the reverse path? I was > thinking > > of this in order to not lose available resources during the forward > path > > which may not be around when the messages start coming back from the > > egress. > > That what our implementation does. We consider it a matter of policy > not to forward a Path message if the T-SPEC can't be met. We also set > the resources aside until either the Path times out or a RESV message > makes the formal reservation. > > ...George > > ================================================================== > George Swallow Cisco Systems (978) 244-8143 > 250 Apollo Drive > Chelmsford, Ma 01824 |
|