The MPLS-OPS Archive

[Rajiv Asati <rajiva@cisco.com>]

Hi S Leung,

Please see inline..

At 02:26 PM 11/7/2002, S Leung wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I am trying to understand how admission control
>should work in RSVP-TE, and would very much appreciate
>if anyone can give me some feedbacks on the following
>questions that I have.
>
>Thanks,
>S Leung.
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have a question on RSVP-TE admission control.
> > My understanding is that the actual bandwidth
> > reservation is done when the RESV message is
> > received, and the bandwidth is reserved on the
> > interface from which the RESV message is received.

Nope.
What you have listed below is the correct behavior.

> >
> > However, in RFC 3209 Section 4.7.3 it indicates that
> > admission control happens upon the receipt of the
> > PATH message.
> >
> > "When a new Path message is considered for
> > admission,
> > the bandwidth requested is compared with the
> > bandwidth
> > available at the priority specified in the Setup
> > Prio.
> >
> > If the requested bandwidth is not available a
> > PathErr
> > message is returned with an Error Code of 01,
> > Admission Control Failure, and an Error Value of
> > 0x0002..."
> >
> > As reservation takes place at the outbound interface
> > of the Path message, in order to do admission
> > control
> > that means the outbound interface of the Path
> > message
> > needs to be determined before CAC can be applied, my
> > question is that why don't we wait until the Resv
> > message is received, considering that the bandwidth
> > requested can be modified/decreased by the egress
> > router?

So when the PATH message is received, the CAC is applied and if granted, 
the PATH message gets sent to the downstream router.
The BW is reserved (not really allocated) to this specific PATH message. If 
the RESV message comes back (for this PATH message), then the BW is allocated.

Now, if there is another PATH message received in between, and the 
requested BW is not available, then this PATH message is not sent to the 
downstream router.

Waiting for the RESV message for the BW reservation is not a good idea, 
since sending PATH message to the downstream routers (and all the way to 
the tunnel tail) when there is not sufficient BW available, doesn't make sense.

> >
> > Also, I assume that the bandwidth requested is
> > compared with the bandwidth available on the
> > outbound interface, and pre-emption should only affect the
> > LSPs that are routed on the same outbound interface, is
> > that correct?

Yes.

hope this helps.
Cheers,
Rajiv

> >
> > Thanks very much for your reply in advance.
> >
> > S. Leung
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos
>http://launch.yahoo.com/u2
>
>-------
>The MPLS-OPS Mailing List
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:  http://www.mplsrc.com/mplsops.shtml
>Archive: http://www.mplsrc.com/mpls-ops_archive.shtml

-------
The MPLS-OPS Mailing List
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:  http://www.mplsrc.com/mplsops.shtml
Archive: http://www.mplsrc.com/mpls-ops_archive.shtml