The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2002-Jun> msg00173



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]  
  [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index]

draft-ietf-mpls-recovery-frmwrk-04.txt

  • From: "Vishal Sharma" <v.sharma@ieee.org>
  • Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 11:46:31 -0400
  • Importance: Normal

Hi Shahram,

Thanks for the observation. You are correct, both possibilities need to be
allowed for. We will update the text accordingly and reissue a revised
version,
which will only appear after Yokohama at this stage.

If you have any other questions, let us know.

-Vishal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-mpls@UU.NET [mailto:owner-mpls@UU.NET]On Behalf Of Shahram
> Davari
> Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 4:28 PM
> To: 'mpls@uu.net'
> Subject: RE: draft-ietf-mpls-recovery-frmwrk-04.txt
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Why is that in section 3.6. (Fault Notification), the only
> notification method mentioned is sending FIS upstream,
> hop-by-hop. Although this is possible but a simpler and more
> conventional method is to send the FIS to the PML and let the PML
> inform the PSL. Is this type of notification excluded? If so why,
> and if not could the authors please add it to the text.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Shahram
>