The MPLS WG Archive

[gopinathg <gopinathg@hclt.com>]

Eric Gray

    In your example I just want to conform & clarify
the following from u..

 I think CR-LDP packet will have both ER-HOP and
FEC (ie similar to FEC in LDP but not CR-LSP FEC
element). If its is true ,at the last ER-HOP we need to
get the next hop as per the LDP specifications..

Thanks In Advance

gopinathg

> Zhang,
>
>     A simple example (like I said, no one may do this
> in practice).  I could simply decide to releave a node
> that is congested by deliberately routing traffic toward
> another node that is not.  There may be lots of ways
> to ensure that the redirected traffic does not still end
> up traversing the congested node without explicitly
> excluding it (by explicitly listing all included nodes) in
> any ERO.  To do this, I should be able to specify an
> explicit route that only contains the desired alternate
> node as a loose hop.  In practice, this is not noticeably
> different from simply terminating the TE LSP at that
> node.
>
> --
> Eric Gray
>
> zhang wrote:
>
>>  Eric Grayplease give me a example"This node is not the end of the
>> LSP.", and according what  the node adds new explicit route?
>>
>>      -----Original Message-----
>>      ·¢¼þÈË: Eric Gray <eric.gray@sandburst.com>
>>      ÊÕ¼þÈË: zhang <zhanghuachen@huawei.com>
>>      ³­ËÍ: mpls@UU.NET <mpls@UU.NET>
>>      ÈÕÆÚ: 2001Äê3ÔÂ8ÈÕ 22:32
>>      Ö÷Ìâ: Re: help for CR-LDP
>>       Zhang,
>>
>>          You use an Explicit Route to designate nodes you want
>>      included in an LSP.  That's all.  Practical uses of the
>>      ERO
>>      currently tend to include the egress from an MPLS domain,
>>      but there may be TE applications (for example) that
>>      benefit
>>      from the increased dynamism of having an ERO that only
>>      specifies some hop toward the middle of the MPLS cloud.
>>
>>      --
>>      Eric Gray
>>
>>      You wrote:
>>
>>      >  Dear Mr.(Mrs),  Please help me for a question about
>>      > algorithem ofselection of the next hop.  In 4.8.1
>>      > selection of the next hop       2. If there is no second
>>      > ER-HOP, this indicates the end of   the explicit route.
>>      > The explicit route TLV should be removed   from the Label
>>      > Request Message. This node may or may not   be the end of
>>      > the LSP. Processing continues with section   4.8.2, where
>>      > a new explicit route TLV may be added to the   Label
>>      > Request Message. But why "This node may or may not be the
>>      > end of the LSP."?RegardsZhang.
>>