The MPLS-OPS Archive

[Spice Sylvia <falsesylvia@yahoo.co.uk>]

So if we do carry the constraints, then?

Is it not more feasable? As long as the LSP/the PW
reaches it's end point, within the given constraint
set, it is not a problem is it? :) (for min hops to
end point for example it can be an object of type 
requested hops , hops so far, etc...)

Considering the number of bits we carry in the RSVP
setup message :) it is not asking for much is it?

I dont quite get the "modified/update" bit you
mentioned in your email. what is the modify/ update in
your case? In this case, it is not a routing protocol
but a signalling protocol. There is no reason to worry
about convergence of updates, withdraws etc, all we
need is a loop free path from A to B within given
constraints.

--- Faisal <StudentResearcher@gmail.com> wrote: 
> Hi,
> 
> At the head end we know about the constraints e.g.
> bandwidth, delay,
> maximum path length etc.
> So head-end computes an LSP using those constraints
> so that complete
> path does not violate any constraint. In this case
> the intermediate
> nodes are not even aware of those constraints.
> 
> On the other hand if you want that intermediate
> nodes compute next hop
> path (like IP) then each node need to send
> "modified/updated"
> constraint to the its next hop, which will be
> clearly an over-head.
> 
> Faisal Aslam
> 
> >Hello,
> 
> >Is there a reason why the LSP setup computation
> using
> >RSVP-TE is done on the head end and not node by
> node?
> 
> >-Sylvia
> 
> -------
> The MPLS-OPS Mailing List
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: 
> http://www.mplsrc.com/mplsops.shtml
> Archive:
> http://www.mplsrc.com/mpls-ops_archive.shtml
>  


	
	
		
___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!  http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

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